The Death of Bluetooth?

Aaron Cherrington writes "Bob Frankston has written an article in which he declares that Bluetooth has failed. The article states that despite the fact it is wireless, it still has all of the limitations of wires. Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?"

Comments

its not dead, but close.

[ender_wiggins]

I had a bluetooth headset for the bluetooth sony/ericson phone, and it sucked. i couldnt get more than 15 feet from the phone. It claims 10 meters, but didnt come close. cant imagine much else comming out with it. just get a pda phone with 3g.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Moofie]

Read my lips.

THAT IS NOT WHAT BLUETOOTH IS FOR.

Bluetooth is for personal (that is, on your person) area networking.

It is, by design, a short-range, low-powered protocol. Your mobile phone is a radio with a range of two or three miles...why the hell do you want ANOTHER radio with a range of 30 feet (with the commensurate power consumption which maps directly onto weight) to communicate with a device that should be in your pocket anyway?

Bluetooth, when properly implemented, is great. It's not designed to be the only wireless protocol: It's narrowly designed to do one thing. Replace wires. That, it does well.

The article criticizes BT because it does exactly what it's designed to do. That's silly.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you so very, very much!

Good job of getting all these idiot geese in a row!

Some people think anything and everything can be used to hammer a nail. Jeez.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[stefanlasiewski]

i couldnt get more than 15 feet from the phone.

The headsets are small and low power. Doesn't suprise me that it couldn't reach more then 15 feet.

My guess is that your phone could reach your headset, but not visa versa.

Of course, you could always redesign the headset and attach a 4AA battery pack to provide enough power for a boosted signal :)

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Threni]

>The article criticizes BT because it does exactly
>what it's designed to do. That's silly.

Well, its a stupid non-problem to fix. Whats wrong with wires? Cheaper to implement, fix, replace. Helps keep the phone headset (for example) on your head, where a wire-less implementation would allow it to fall to the floor.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[tomstdenis]

Oh and I bet your TV has one of those sliding channel changers my GrandMa had back in the day?

Tom

Re:its not dead, but close.

[ukoda]

You hit the nail on the head. Bluetooth is a PAN and WiFi is a LAN. For people who are confused I always tell them for Bluetooth think USB and WiFi think Ethernet. It pretty clear what each of those is best at and like USB, Bluetooth's biggest problem was too much hype too soon but at least it is starting to deliver. People used put down USB as hype and a waste of time, but you don't hear that anymore. At the current roll out rate Bluetooth should get past that point before the end of this year, with cheaper product already on the shelves.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Ken@WearableTech]

I had the same trouble, but once I took the tin-foil helmet that protects me from the x-rays from mars off, it stopped sucking

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does a wire help keep a phone handset on your head--unless it's wraped around your neck?

A handset either has to clamp onto your body in some manner (in which case it becomes less of a handset and more of a headset), or you have to hold it (hence the term handset).

Cellphones don't have wires. Note the popularity they are experiencing at the moment.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Scutter]

I agree that the range sucks, but I also have a T68i and a Jabra headset and the headset is *awesome*. I can actually use my cellphone in the car safely because I don't have to fumble with wires. It's totally voice activated, so my hands don't even need to leave the steering wheel.

That said, I wish Bluetooth had wider acceptance and a bit more in terms of implementation (connecting my phone to my PC, for example, isn't the effortless task is should be...)

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Moofie]

What's wrong with wires? They tangle. They wad up in my pocket and make it harder to rig my earphone. I have to have a different one to perform each task (attach phone to PDA, attach PDA to GPS, attach GPS to computer, make up all your own permutations). They are expensive and fragile.

Do they have to be expensive? Of course they don't. It's a wire, with a plastic doohickey on each end. How many mobile electronics vendors are making universal cable systems? With the conspicuous exception of audio headphones, zero.

I hate wires. It's a problem I percieve, and a solution I'm willing to pay for. Therefore, from my perspective, it is good technology.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Total_Wimp]

This focus on the Bluetooth headset is shortsighted. BT headsets might be the only currently useful thing to do with BT, but they get BT on devices. When BT gets on devices then you build a base of devices. When you have a base of devices then people start leaving their BT on all the time and they start thinking of interesting ways to use them.

I want:

- my BT headset to interface with my VOIPed home phone
- my BT cell phone to act as a wireless remote control for my TV
- a BT wireless remote to allow separate control over two identical cable boxes (try that with IR)
- a BT keyboard and mouse to interface with my BT smartphone
- to have all my wireless keyboards and mice work with all my computers and all my devices
- to have automatic sync between all of my devices simply by walking up to them

I'll get all of these things with BT because it's low powered, physically small and very cheap to implement in quantity. I'll never get all of these things if I try to get them with 802.11.

TW

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Well, its a stupid non-problem to fix. Whats wrong with wires? Cheaper to implement, fix, replace."

That problem's not so stupid. That little wire can be a huge PITA.

1.) They break.
2.) They get tangled
3.) That same cable that 'helps keep the headset on your head' actually is the biggest cause of it being suddenly removed from your head.
4.) Every phone uses a different adapater, Bluetooth (in theory) should run on any phone.

As I said, the problem's not so stupid. There are benefits to going wireless with it. It isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's not really that bad. I know I'd like one. My apartment gets bad reception unless I can leave my phone in one good spot. I'd have a little more freedom with the BT headset. (too bad they're ridiculously expensive.)

Re:its not dead, but close.

[ender_wiggins]

if it clames 10 meters. i expect it. i but a 2 ghz processor and it only goes 1.25, i will be pissed.
i live outside the box, not in it.
Why do i want a radio with 30feet range? Cause i would rather have that one next to my brain than the 3 mile one.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Moofie]

Fair enough. But, I've never seen a BT device with such a long range advertised. What model of phone and headset do you have?

By your argument, a radio with 10 foot (or 3 foot) range is better than the 30 foot range.

Now, there was another poster who noted that there's a "sweet spot" in their apt where they can get mobile service. In that case, it's totally logical to need a longer range wireless headset. But I'd argue that's a different itch, perhaps one better scratched by a longer range (802.11) implementation.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[evocate]

I have a Nokia 6310i with a Jabra BT200 and I love it. I think the practial limit for me is about 20 feet from the phone, which definitely beats the limit of about 2 inches without the Jabra. Hey, if someone will produce a cellphone/headset combo that uses 802.11, sell it to me. Meanwhile, I'm using Bluetooth and my neck and ear feel pretty good.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

This box of which you speak, is it the grammar/punctuation/spelling box? Because, you might want to get back inside that one.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth is for personal (that is, on your person) area networking

speak correct english retard

Re:its not dead, but close.

[OzRoy]

But I want to use my computer mouse from 3 km away.

It would really confuse my Grandmother who is currently trying to learn to use Linux.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Eric Smith]

I too have the T68i and Jabra. I loved it at first. The battery actually lasted for more than the rated three hours of talk time, and the range was more than ten feet. But a month later, I find that the battery life is now less than an hour of talk time, and the range has dropped to under three feet. Maybe the non-user-replacable battery in the headset has gone bad or something. I'm going to call Jabra about it this week.

I'm not sure whether it's due to a bug in the T68i phone, or in the headset, but I find that trying to train the phone's voice dialing using the headset (which is what Jabra recommends) only rarely works, and often the phone crashes during the attempt and I have to remove the battery. I ended up training the voice dialing without using the headset, and it seems to work fine. I suspect it's a bug in the phone, because there shouldn't be anything an external device can do to crash the phone. Even if a Bluetooth device mangled the protocol in horrible ways, the phone still shouldn't crash. And I've certainly found other bugs in the phone, though I mostly like it.

A friend told me that there was a firmware upgrade for the headset (also not user-installable), and that Jabra offers an advanced exchange if you give them a credit card number. I haven't confirmed this.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[baka_boy]

I agree that Bluetooth needs to hit a certain density in common consumer goods before it will be really useful, but some of your examples are pretty unlikely to be part of that process.

Point-by-point:

- A Bluetooth headset would make a terrible home-phone add-on; I expect my cordless phone at home to at least function throughout the main floor of my house, if not into the yard, basement, etc. With a Bluetooth headset, I wouldn't be able to move more than a few paces from the wired phone line.

- Remote control applications could be good, but again, depending on environmental radio noise, etc., I'd probably prefer for my TV to stick with IR. Of course, I don't really watch TV, so I can't speak to how convenient it is to not have to keep track of a seperate remote.

- As for the Bluetooth remote for two boxes, that's (AFAIK) a hypothetical future product which could be accomplished just as easily with a properly implemented IR system. Again, the radio noise and lack of range would also make me think twice about replacing infrared.

- The keyboard and mouse are definitely a useful thing, whether they're connecting to a phone, PDA, or even a desktop PC.

- See above

- Again, device synchronization is one of the most logical (and already well-supported) uses for Bluetooth. If you (or a friend or coworker) have access to a recent-model Mac, you should check out iSync with the built-in Bluetooth adapters. My roommate has a Sony/Ericsson Bluetooth-enabled phone, a Palm Tungsten T, and a new 12" PowerBook, all of which link up and sync nicely via iSync. (Now, if only T-Mobile would get a clue on their GPRS pricing, we could all start chucking out our old 56k modems.)

As for the size and cost of Bluetooth, well...it's really not significantly cheaper or smaller than 802.11b. They both work on similar frequencies, with similar degrees of signal processing complexity. The main differences come from 802.11b being at least an order of magnitude more powerful a signal, and requiring more processing power to take advantage of the bandwidth it offers (which is about *two* orders of magnitude greater).

For extremely low-bandwidth connection of I/O devices and short-range transfer of compact binary data, Bluetooth has some real potential. Much of it's vaunted simplicity and cost savings, though, are simply industry hype, generated largely by the same companies that are trying to sell Bluetooth chipsets and design services to electronics manufacturers, and those manufactorers who are trying to push consumers to upgrade to the new top-of-the-line models that support it.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[MrWa]

Bluetooth, when properly implemented, is great. It's not designed to be the only wireless protocol: It's narrowly designed to do one thing. Replace wires. That, it does well.

The original poster was complaining because the headset for his phone would not work over 10ft away. I have headsets with wires longer than that and they work just fine.

Are you sure Bluetooth can replace wires extremely well? Obviously in this case, the wire the customer wanted replaced couldn't be done with Bluetooth...

If designers and companies try to use Bluetooth for networking beyond the workable range then it isn't gonna work. Customers don't give a crap how their wireless headset works, they just want it to work.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell!?!

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Moofie]

And if your wireless headset used 802.11, it'd need a battery pack half the size of the one that powers your phone, making it really heavy to carry around on your ear (which many people seem to prefer to the over-the-head kind).

So, yes, Bluetooth can't do what Bluetooth can't do. That doesn't mean it's not good at doing tasks that are inside its design space.

I want to see you use that long headphone cable while you clean up the kitchen. That's my favourite time to use my Sennheiser wireless cans. Those cans don't have near the sound reproduction capabilities of similarly priced wired cans, but they're infinitely more useful because I'm not tied physically to a stationary object.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[kosibar]

Everybody has forgotten my favorite, or maybe that's my least favorite - they get lost! I have so many cables around for so many different things, and they all look alike when coiled and wire tied. I have no clue where my $70 PDA to Cell Phone cable is at the moment, and I wanted it this afternoon!

Not to mention that I have plenty of things to carry on me already, and some of those wires get kind of bulky, so I end up trying to keep it in the vehicle I'm using most. Hence my current situation... it was between vehicles, left in the house for a week or so, and POOF! Gone.

My Tungsten|T supports BlueTooth, but my phone doesn't. :-( The price of BlueTooth phones was quite high when I got my service, and nobody knew what it even was at the time. (Maybe they still don't.)

And for those who say, "Just get a PDA phone," they're nuts! I buy a PDA for its PDA features, and a phone for its phone features. I don't want one that compromises on both.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could remote popup an image viewer with the goatse.cx guy. I'm sure that'd tickle her asshole.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

i live outside the box, not in it.

That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and I've been reading Slashdot all day!

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

"15 feet..."

"10 meters..."

How many furlongs to the hogshead is that?

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Moofie]

On another tack, have you ever dropped a phone attached by a wire to your ear?

It really hurts.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[steeviant]

Bluetooth is significantly cheaper to implement, costing under $20US per device to the manufacturer.

Most devices use a single chip version of bluetooth and a tiny antenna, or one integrated into another antenna, all requiring less real estate on circuit boards and less materials.

Bluetooth tranceivers radiate less energy, causing lower interference than 802.11b and allowing it to be packed closer to other hardware.

Bluetooth uses drastically less power than 802.11 because it's range is designed to be very limited.

In addition to this, the bluetooth standard also caters for encryption that is transparent to the user, this coupled with it's limited range offers vastly increased security over 802.11 for transferring your valued and confidential information between cellphone/PDA and computer.

In short it's smaller, cheaper and less complicated in every respect, allowing those manufacturers you talk about to make smaller, better connected cellphones.

A worthwhile upgrade if you ask me.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[slittle]

A Bluetooth headset would make a terrible home-phone add-on; I expect my cordless phone at home to at least function throughout the main floor of my house, if not into the yard, basement, etc. With a Bluetooth headset, I wouldn't be able to move more than a few paces from the wired phone line.

WRONG! Classic case of the second system effect.

Your cordless phone ALREADY extends your phone's range into the yard - YOU DON'T NEED BT TO DO IT ALSO.

BT is used to get rid of the wires, there is NO requirement to extend the range! A corded phone typically has a range of 1-2m, maybe upto 3-5m. That's all BT has to compete with. When I'm at the office, I don't expect to be able to go grab a coffee while on the phone to a user, but I would like to be able to wander over to the other side of the room to get a manual without knocking shit off the desk with the cord, and then not have to deal with 5m of phone cord all over the place when I hang up.

Wireless doesn't automatically imply long range. BT = short range. If you want long range, use another system, and be prepared to recharge the fucker every 70 minutes.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

language flames from the mentally under-equipped...

Re:its not dead, but close.

[jpkunst]

Remote control applications could be good, but again, depending on environmental radio noise, etc., I'd probably prefer for my TV to stick with IR.

I am using my T68i BT-enabled phone as a remote control for my Mac, thanks to the wonderful Salling Clicker application. I don't have a dedicated DVD player, but using the phone as a remote control it's very convenient to sit back and watch DVD's on my computer. It's also nice that you don't have the point the phone at anything when using it as a remote control. Oh, and of course I also synchronize my address book with BT. In my household at least, Bluetooth is far from dead.

JP

Re:its not dead, but close.

[immybaby]

The range is just dependent on the power of the Bluetooth transmitter. I have a Bluetooth dongle with a 100m range, and the next generation of phones will also have these 100m range chips.

Bluetooth satisfies a very different need to 802.11, I only use it to control things I am in the vicinity of - that's the whole point. Using my iMac I can sync all my contacts and calendar when I come in range, and I can also get my computer to start playing music when I come in and change the music from my bed. My computer can detect when I leave and silence itself and set a passworded screensaver. I can control a Keynote presentation on a PowerBook - why on earth would I want to do this over the internet from the other side of the world, as 802.11 can?

Re:its not dead, but close.

[troc]

It's a simple fix actually .......

You could use the battery in your phone to power the headset, just attact a wire.... oh

erm

oops?

Troc

Re:its not dead, but close.

[dirkx]

"Whats wrong with wires? Cheaper to implement, fix, replace"

Though that wire may be cheap - the actual connector and making sure the holes are in the right place of the casing; and making sure things are easy to assemble are not.

It is pretty common for 80% of the cost of something like temperature sensor with serial port, or a USB to FM radio, to be in the housing, assembly and the thoughdful steps to get the connectors mechanically sensible in place. And not with the electronics which does the sensible thing.

With bluetooth it is just some easy to place SMD stuff and a bit of firmware. Note of course that all is a compromize; because now you have a battery problem (and perhaps an edge connector for that) and you need some UI to pair the device to the right other endpoint.

But bluetooth is a useful element in the compromize game to make things cheaper.

Dw.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, iSync ate my contants in phone, so it will be some time until I will trust it again.

Also, don't put high hope into GPRS - it sounds nice, modem-like speed and mobile. But it also has high latency.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Alan Partridge]

You have to capitalise "English".

Helps if your post makes ANY kind of sense, too.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were cool until you started talking about macs!

Re:its not dead, but close.

[raju1kabir]

Bluetooth is significantly cheaper to implement, costing under $20US per device to the manufacturer.

I can buy an 802.11b card for $20 retail , so it can't cost much more than that to build, even assuming the standard sell-for-less-than-it-costs high-tech business model.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I have a wireless. Wait...

See, wireless. No big deal. It's oooold news. But feel free to try and make an idea from the 50's or whatever look sexy again by giving it a stupid name.

Re:its not dead, but close.

[steeviant]

Perhaps I should have said "significantly less than $20". A bit of checking around mobile device manufacturers has shown that the total cost of implementing bluetooth per device is about $5 USD, for a production run of 1,000 devices.

And don't forget that you still need to have a TCP/IP stack and an ethernet driver somewhere besides in that card. (Although, WAP also needs a TCP/IP stack...)

Bluetooth implementations appear as a serial device once paired, which is quite a lot simpler to design circuits for.

Besides, as I said in my original message, the savings for manufacturers come in a variety of ways. It's safe to assume that the PCMCIA card you showed is at least half-full of components and antenna(e), so it would cost significantly more to a volume manufacturer to implement.

Bluetooth and 802.11 are not mutually exclusive, and I'd love to have wireless ethernet in my t68i, I'm just trying to say that bluetooth is a very attractive proposition to manufacturers, particularly when you're trying to out-shrink and out-feature your competitors at the same time.

Look at it this way, if I was manufacturing half a million phones and I could have bluetooth on them for 50c or 802.11b for 55c or a combination of the two for $1 - I'd have to justify the extra $25,000 to gain 802.11b and lose bluetooth, or an extra $500,000 to have both. Alternatively, you could probably employ a few extra engineers for the same price.

First the Hype, Now the Anti-Hype

[ackthpt]

First there's the hype, now there's the anti-hype. How about this radical idea, use the right technology for the right purpose and ignore the hype?

Oh, wait, PHB's read this stuff but not slashdot, nevermind.

Re:First the Hype, Now the Anti-Hype

[TheRaven64]

In other news, the PS/2 port has been made obselete by the 100Base-T ethernet connection. After all, why would anyone want a port into which they can only plug a keyboard or mouse with limited bandwidth when they could have one that connects to the Internet?

He is dead!

[RobertTaylor]

King Harald 'Bluetooth' (Danish Harald Blåtand) was the King of Denmark and died in 986AD.

Come on /. this is *really* old news!

Re:He is dead!

[elid]

According to Encyclopedia.com he didn't simply die - he was killed while fighting his son's forces. So internal squabbles led to his demise. Let's hope the same doesn't happen to the new Bluetooth.

Re:He is dead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, standing applause, simply the best reply i've ever read.

Power Consumption

[elid]

One big benefit of Bluetooth, as one of the user comments on the article's site stated, is it's low-power consumption. So for devices that don't require long distance connections (i.e. keyboard, mouse, cell phone, etc.), Bluetooth is a very convenient technology - WiFi is kinda overkill.

Re:Power Consumption

[ackthpt]

Bluetooth is a very convenient technology - WiFi is kinda overkill.

Yeah and with 802.11 you find chalk outside your door and someone has taken over control of your electric nosehair groomer.

Re:Power Consumption

[Ken@WearableTech]

Also, the fine print of WiFi devices says to keep the radio about a foot away from your body.

My BT Headset has 0.0025 Watts of Power
My CF 802.11b has 0.0100 Watts of Power
My T68 Phone has 0.87 Watts of Power

I'll cook my brain with BlueTooth

Re:Power Consumption

[mazevedo]

This .87W of power is the PHONE's GSM Antena, not the Bluetooth!!!

Re:Power Consumption

[elem]

Ummmmm....

I think you somewhat mis-understood the comment.

Given the three different powers he would choose to 'cook his brain' with the BlueTooth transmitter not the others. He didn't mean that using BlueTooth would cook his brain.

Re:Power Consumption

[mazevedo]

I didn't think of it that way... The T68 does have bluetooth, so that's why I understanded that way. Maybe I should read more carefully next time.

Re:Power Consumption

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Actually, low-wattage 1mbps range limited 802.11b chipsets have the same kind of power consumption as BT chipsets. They also are similarly priced, have a similar range, and offer comparable bandwidth.

Re:Power Consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody got Linux running yet on the Braun SmartCut 2000?

echo 1 > /dev/bladectl

Re:Power Consumption

[steeviant]

Pardon?

Where did you get that information from?

He's dead, Jim.

[FreeLinux]

Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?

No. It's dead. 802.11x is a far better solutioin for most everything. 802.11x offers better speed, range and availabillity. Sure, HP doesn't have 802.11x embedded in its printers, yet. But, once they give up on Bluetooth, you might very well see printers with 802.11x.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[VCAGuy]

Sure, HP doesn't have 802.11x embedded in its printers, yet.

Actually, they kinda do. I just bought an 802.11b JetDirect 680n EIO printserver for my LaserJet 2100 today--HP part number J6058A. So while it isn't embedded, it is internal. Is that close enough?

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[Midnight Thunder]

No. It's dead. 802.11x is a far better solutioin for most everything. 802.11x offers better speed, range and availabillity.

As already mentioned, Bluetooth is not intended to be a networking technology. It is one up from I-R and one down from Wi-Fi. Its one up to I-R because it allows simple devices, close together, to communicate together, simply, and not need to be in line of sight. It is one down from Wi-Fi because there is no need to use something this heavy duty to transfer simple data, doing so would simply be cost restrictive and over kill - this would be akin to using 4 ton truck for moving a box's worth of paper in your office.

People who understand Bluetooth are using it for things like wireless keyboards, mice and synching PDAs and mobile phone to PCs. Printers are a special case, since in most cases you would want to use Wi-Fi, but by using Bluetooth you allow a simple PDA to print out a document - I suppose printers are pushing Bluetooth to the limits of what it was designed for.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are a retard! This IS NOT WHAT BLUETOOTH IS FOR. Bluetooth is for hooking your phone up to your laptop, aexchanging contacts with other peoples phones, and most importantly, sending porn gifs to one another in the pub for endless ammusement.

NOT grand scale wireless networking.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[Hank Chinaski]

yeah right. it's so dead that in the last twelve month more bluetooth chips than 802.11 chips were produced and sold.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[GigsVT]

People who understand Bluetooth are using it for things like wireless keyboards, mice

People who understand Bluetooth but are clueless about security?

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[Midnight Thunder]

People who understand Bluetooth but are clueless about security?

You're right that Bluetooth lacks any real security, but by being an ultra short range technology the risk of snoopers, and anonymous at that, is reduced greatly. If someone is snooping, then the person snooping is already within an eye-shot or hearing range. Until encryption can be added without adding to the price of the technology, then it is a risk that should be taken into account.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[radish]

Hint: If there's a guy in a long black coat stood next to you at your desk trying to look casually at a bluetooth version of netstumbler without you noticing, he may be snooping. On the other hand, if he's that close he could just look at your screen.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[DJPenguin]

I was under the impression that BT is encrypted all the time anyway - it's built into the protocol.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[AdamInParadise]

Sorry, Bluetooth can be secured. All connexions can use 128 bit encryption and challenge-response authentication with a user-defined pin-code. The problem is that in many cases, you cannot change the pin-code of the device, because your device doesn't have a suitable human interface. For example, BT headset don't have keyboards, so the pin-code is defined once and for all in the factory, and usually all devices of a given model have the same pin-code, like 00000 or 12345.

That's clearly a weakness but there is no obvious solution.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[GigsVT]

You guys are missing the point. While the normal receiver can only pick up the signal for maybe 10-20 feet, a high gain antenna pointed at your office (through a window, or maybe even through an exterior wall), could pick up your signal for hundreds of yards.

This isn't some pie-in-the-sky spy tech either, it's basic radio gear that anyone could build.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[Midnight Thunder]

Thanks for heads up on that, I hadn't realised.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[raju1kabir]

it's so dead that in the last twelve month more bluetooth chips than 802.11 chips were produced and sold.

Doesn't mean anyone's using them. They're just getting built into phones in search of buzzword-compliance.

In the last twelve months more AOL CDs were produced than Microsoft Office CDs. Which do you think are getting more use?

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[Ezrem]

Why would you want to use WiFi over Bluetooth?

Yes, I suppose you can queue your print job from 300 feet away instead of 30, but you still have to walk to the printer to get it.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

[Sax Maniac]

If someone is snooping, then the person snooping is already within an eye-shot or hearing range.

Or until someone invents a BT-to-WiFi gateway that can be hidden somewhere...

I never even knew it took off!

[jlechem]

I have never even used a blue tooth enbable device. It all seemed a little flakey to me. Also I've had several friends on mac and windows say they simply couldn't get their device to work and if it did work it would crap out on them all the time.

Re:I never even knew it took off!

[aallan]

I have never even used a blue tooth enbable device.

Err...

It all seemed a little flakey to me.

If you've never used a bluetooth device, how can you comment?

Also I've had several friends on mac and windows say they simply couldn't get their device to work and if it did work it would crap out on them all the time.

Are these people vaguely technically literate? Basically you're assumption that "I never even knew it took off!" is seriously flawed. Come to Europe, look around. Then reevaluate your opinions.

Al.

Comparing apples and oranges

[singularity]

The suthor seems to think that Bluetooth will fail because it is not good for connecting to the Internet. Well, duh...

Bluetooth could be good for something else - Personal Area Networks (PAN). This would be used for connecting different portable devices without wires. Range would only be a meter or so, and connecting to the Internet would be right out. There is no sense in all devices trying to connect to the Internet, I only need one device to do that and then all other devices connect to *that device* wirelessly.

I wrote a journal entry about this very concept.

The point? Yes, Bluetooth is not as good as 802.11 for connecting to the Internet. There is, however, a huge field open for Bluetooth to fill. Unfortuantely, speed and availability seems to limit it.

I would look for Bluetooth-type technologies to take off in the near future, even if not to "connect to the Internet and compete vs. 802.11" The author seems to limit his thining to beleive that the only niche for Bluetooth would be to connect headsets to phones. Think outside the box a little, and Blueetooth has a huge opening and millions of uses.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges

[PolR]

Agree. I would add that in the context of a PAN, Bluetooth is OK to connect to the Internet by using the cell phone as an uplink where there is no 802.11 network to connect to.

I use Bluetooth to connect my PDA to my GSM phone. Now I have access to Internet about everywhere through GPRS. I can do it at the restaurant table while dining with friends or while walking on the street when coming back from work. I like it. This is a fine utilisation of a PAN and as long as Bluetooth is faster than GPRS, none of its limitations matter. Low power low distance is acutally an advantage because it reduces the risk of interference. No big deal for now but what if the technology become pervasive?

The reason Bluetooth doesn't take off is it is poorly marketed. It is waaay overpriced to get any widspread adoption.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges

[Nogami_Saeko]

I'd tend to agree with the overpriced bit. The price is "starting" to come down, but it's not there by a longshot.

There are a number of people that have ordered the "bluespoon" wireless headsets for their various phones. Granted, the design is pretty nice - fits almost entirely in your ear, however it's over $250, and people have already complained about the range being extremely short.

Sony Ericsson also makes a couple of bluetooth headsets, both of which retail for over $100.

When these headsets get to under $50, they'll probably take off, but it's the price point that will get them selling (at least in North America), not the features/convenience.

While Europeans and Asians want small and convenient, and are willing to pay for it, most North Americans want CHEAP - nothing else matters...

N.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges

[LordBodak]

Exactly right. It's the same concept as putting one of those cable modem gateways (or doing it right with a spare PC) in your home and running a network. Not everything _needs_ to connect to the internet, it just needs to connect to a device that connects to the internet.

Re:Comparing apples and oranges

[jdray]

Using the same argument (devices connected to devices that are connected to the Internet), 802.11 doesn't connect you to the Internet, either. Usually it's connected to a router that uses DSL/Cable to connect to the Internet. But, then, what is the Internet? (oh, sorry about that) It's a bunch of devices connected together with a variety of telecommunication links.

Seems to miss the point a bit...

[fuzzeli]

Do you really need IP infrastructure to move packets between your pockets?
This is nuts. There's a niche for bluetooth. The whole p2p bluetooth PAN-in-your-PANTS thing may sound silly now, but my bag would be a lot lighter if I didn't have to carry so many dangly dongles.

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Dr. Seuss.

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

[fuzzeli]

With a packet from your pocket,
we can jack it to a socket,
but with newey teeth of bluey,
do we need a GUI? Phooey!

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to have 2^32 pockets and need the routing ability of IP4, thank you.

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

[fuzzeli]

You know, I hadn't thought of that. Good catch. And that explains why my new cargo pants from Old Navy are IPv6-ready.

And fun for the whole family!

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

[AndrewNelson]

People! This is what IPv6 is for!

I mean, what if you get a nice overcoat for that - now you've exceeded your address space. Sure, you could implement NAT, but then you're going to need another pocket for the router, et cetera...

IPv6! Your pockets will thank you!

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

[TummyX]

Do you really need IP infrastructure to move packets between your pockets? This is nuts.


No the thing inbetween your pockets is nuts.

*groan*

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

[fuzzeli]

no no, that's my bag of dangly dongles, I just checked.

Perhaps a little premature...

[Chicane-UK]

I think its way too early to rule out Bluetooth.. it is still a relatively new technology, and its only now starting to see wider adoption - things like the Microsoft Bluetooth cordless desktop and the like have only been out for a few months!

Also heard about things like Bluetooth capable printers which sounds like a great idea.

I don't really see any suitable alternatives to Bluetooth as yet for short range wire-free communication between devices. The only thing that lets it down is the high cost of Bluetooth components in devices - on larger items like printers and expensive mobile phones this isnt too bad, but for smaller cheaper devices it kinda keeps the prices a little high!

Re:Perhaps a little premature...

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the same jackasses that have been predicting Apple's death for over a decade now. All they talk about is death, OS/2 was dying for 5 years before it was dead and IBM is still shipping updates.. Sun is dying, odd that they've got like $7billion in cash, most than enough to operate for quite a while with no income. Foo is dying, Bar is dying, shit Novell and NDS have been dying for 15 years and the company is still profitable and drawing income and even gaining customers.. It's just a bad as any FUD MS has ever done and they call themselves journalists or technology experts. Go figure. IA64 was going to kill x86 too, how many has Intel sold? 5000 or something like that? Clearly they know what they are talking about.

802.11 is going nowhere in embedded space, it's way too expensive, it's way to power hungry and it's an incredibly dynamic standard. It's killer, I'm not knocking 802.11 but it's not the second comming. It's great at connecting desktop and laptop computers. Would you put 802.11 in your fridge? How about any home automation? Palm computer? Cell phone? Generally, no. Bluetooth on the other hand is optimal at stuff like that and contrary, it is very cheap; test kits and the slow hardware adoption have hurt pricing but the hardware is very cheap and low power. It will get really cheap as it picks up speed in the market

Just wait, bluetooth won't take over the world over night but there are some wickedly cool applications for it and it's far from dead. I expect that within 5-10 years we'll have bluttooth or bluetooth2 technology in a ton on consumer products, possibly more than 802.11. Complete with home appliances that can be controlled by your computer, their health can be monitored from a computer. I've seen demos for products like light switches where you can place them at will ($120 and you can just stick a light switch on a wall somewhere and control a light somewhere else, no electrician needed, no fancy rewiring job) It's slow to accept but people are developing some killer applications and they will find the one that housewives and joe sixpacks want, 802.11 will stay in geek space.

Re:Perhaps a little premature...

[yem]

The only thing that lets it down is the high cost of Bluetooth components in devices

I thought the whole idea of Bluetooth was to make the hardware very inexpensive specifically so that a bluetooth "chip" could be ubiquitous - imbedded in virtually every electronic device. I think I heard a cost like US50c in mass quantities. If the cost of integration really is high then thats a shame.

I wish it were ubiquitous, but it doesn't seem to heading that way. Look at Nokia - dozens of high end phones, but only the expensive 'corporate' phones and the most expensive camera phones have bluetooth. And where are the cheap bluetooth keyboards & mice?

Disappointing.

Re:Perhaps a little premature...

[blacklab2000]

For two device connections? IrDA. It's pretty ubiquitous in current model laptops. And with FIR chipsets or better, the speed beats Bluetooth.

I've had little trouble buying both an IrDA equiped laptop printer and cell phone from local vendors in the past year. I was unable to find similar Bluetooth equiped peripherals. Although Bluetooth may be seeing better adoption in Europe, there isn't a lot of choice available here - particularly when compared to IrDA.

Re:Perhaps a little premature...

[chundo]

Actually, when bought in bulk, Bluetooth antennas are already available for less than $5 apiece, and will soon be under $2 according to analysts. Considering that just about any device that would make good use of Bluetooth is probably over $100 anyways, the additional hardware cost really doesn't seem that prohibitive.

-j

Re:Perhaps a little premature...

[budn3kkid]

Comon ppl, there's more to BT than just some stoopid PDAs, Notebooks and Cellphones... How many slashdotters are using "portable" CD/MD/MP3 players with the same bloody irritating wired headphones/earphones?? Can't they be replaced with wireless BT versions? The tech used on players are constantly progressing, but why are we still using the same ol' crappy wired earphone? Also, BT-enabled CD/MD/MP3 players can allow for multiple BT earphones to listen-in to the same songs on the player... NO MORE SHARING EARPHONES! Sony and whoever , are you reading this??? Do something! I wan a BT earphone for my CD Walkman! ^_^ What about applying BT on security cards? (ever played Metal Gear Solid?) Can't it be implemented on non-contact(yeah right) contactless cards so we don't have to bloody tap the !@$#^% thing on the thingamajig next to the door... What about BT keys for cars? Similar to the implementation on security cards, they can be used for unlocking doors, right? Now all we have to do is to find a way to make the *ahem* low-power consumption BT devices consume even less power for such low powered apps they get built for (Seiko Kinetic watches, anyone?) Now, if some of these ideas are implemented, it'll make many ppl happy, yes? BuDn3kkID

Re:Perhaps a little premature...

[Cato]

Nokia don't get Bluetooth, nor do Samsung, Sharp Panasonic, etc (based on the various phones in the UK market). However, SonyEricsson do support Bluetooth well, and increasingly other manufacturers do as well - Motorola, Siemens, etc. Also Sony has several Clie's with built-in Bluetooth, and the same's true of HP iPAQs.

One annoying issue with Palm Bluetooth when using it with mobile phones to get onto GPRS - when the Palm device goes to sleep, it disconnects the PPP link to the mobile phone, causing the GPRS connection to drop. This converts the nice always-on GPRS link into a 'must always reconnect' link, causing 10-30 sec delay. Nice one, Palm - does anyone know if PalmOS 5 fixes this?

It's quite simple..

[infiniti99]

The best reason to use bluetooth is to link your cellphone with your PDA or laptop. 802.11 is total overkill for that. Your batteries will die in 20 minutes trying to power a 2-foot link.

I agree that syncing a PDA over the internet or larger distances could be useful, and in that case 802.11 is your man. Bluetooth's goal is to replace short range connections, such as the near-useless IR (ever try aiming a PDA at your phone while as a passenger? I did, and I used velcro for the occasion...)

I was hoping this article wasn't going to be another Bluetooth vs 802.11 non-argument. guess I was wrong.

Re:It's quite simple..

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I've seen atleast one suggestion that the power consumption difference is mostly caused by the fact that bluetooth adjusts the transmitter power according to the range.

WiFi transmitters can very likely be made to do that as well.

I've also been using WiFi on my laptop, I haven't noticed any reduction on the battery life; compared to the disk or the processor it seems to take hardly any power; cell phones are a different ball game, but just using less power and hence giving lower range seems doable.

Re:It's quite simple..

[infiniti99]

Adjusting the transmitter power seems like a bad idea when you consider that there could be multiple devices to talk to (and what happens when you add a new one?). While I'm no hardware engineer, I doubt bluetooth does this.

I believe the power savings come from the fact that bluetooth only transmits about 10 meters at best, while 802.11 can go down the block. Also, bluetooth is much slower, maxing out at around 700kb/s.

Re:It's quite simple..

[Anonymous Coward]

Referring hazily back to my ISO network diagrams, I was always under the impression that 802.11 was a physical layer - i.e. a different way of physically moving packets of information. Bluetooth is a totally different protocol, transport layer and physical layer.

I really don't get the argument, can't they do a Honda Civic vs. Boeing 747 argument? I'm sure both could do the same tasks, but it's all about bandwidth and range, isn't it...

Re:It's quite simple..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you have a power hungry intel laptop. With a battery life of 2 hours, you're not going to notice the 5 minutes wifi takes away. A mac is another story. I get 5 hours without wifi and about 4.5 with wifi on my powerbook. You'd get good results with some of the other low power x86 cpus too.

Re:It's quite simple..

[Lumpy]

Your batteries will die in 20 minutes trying to power a 2-foot link.

Funny... I get 3 hours out of my Zaurus and it's 802.11b card.

1.5 if I use the backlight.

either you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about, or you have a really REALLY crappy pda.

Re:It's quite simple..

[man_ls]

802.11 is the layer 1 and 2 protocol. Above that, all the standard protocols that work over wires work, because at that point you're in the logical, not physical, realm.

Re:It's quite simple..

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I believe the power savings come from the fact that bluetooth only transmits about 10 meters at best

That's precisely the point; the transmitter is lower power, so the batteries last longer.

Also, bluetooth is much slower, maxing out at around 700kb/s.

Yes, but WiFi transmits faster, so doesn't transmit as long. Ten times the power and speed for 1/10 of the time is the same power.

Re:It's quite simple..

[infiniti99]

Well, I was mostly exaggerating, but I would say it depends on your device. My VAIO 505 laptop battery was so shot, that using 802.11 made it nearly unusable without a power cable. ;-) But then we're talking about a laptop that has 45 minutes on a full battery ...

I have a Zaurus myself, and while I've never done any power benchmarking with it, I certainly have noticed a significant difference in battery life used between my Linksys 802.11b and Bluetooth+GPRS.

Re:It's quite simple..

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither the FSF nor U.S. Copyright law consider copyright infringement to be theft. So get your facts straight.

You are wrong, my friend. Well, I neither know nor care about this FSF thing you mentioned, but the United States Code defines unlawful copying as a felony punishable by fines or prison time.

Maybe you're getting tripped up on the word "theft." There's a legal definition of theft that's very specific, and a colloquial definition of theft that's very broad. The colloquial definiton of theft is simply "to take without permission." That's it. By that definition, fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, larceny, shoplifting, and unlawful copying are all theft. None of these things is, under the legal definition, "theft." But that doesn't mean they're not theft.

Copying without permission is stealing. And it's wrong.

Let's see if that sinks in.

Re:It's quite simple..

[Mr_Silver]

Funny... I get 3 hours out of my Zaurus and it's 802.11b card.

It's called slight exaggeration :o)

However the point is still there. 802.11b is not really suitable for battery powered devices. Simply because the drain is so high, you end up running out of power too quickly.

I can't think of many people outside of slashdot who consider 3 hours battery life using WiFi as acceptable.

Re:It's quite simple..

[R.Caley]

Funny... I get 3 hours out of my Zaurus and it's 802.11b card.

1.5 if I use the backlight.

That would seem to prove that the Zaurus is pretty awful, bluetooth or 802.

What on earth happened to designing battery powerd devices with battery consumption in mind? I'd be really upset if I got less than a full working day out of one set/charge of batteries in a PDA.

Re:It's quite simple..

[ReaperOfSouls]

I can't think of many people outside of slashdot who consider 3 hours battery life using WiFi as acceptable.

Most laptops I have used can hardly handle 3 hours on a full charge. We are starting to get there, but most systems that have been used for more then a couple months, the batteries don't hold up to the abuse.

Re:It's quite simple..

[Lumpy]

nope never tried bluetooth as ther are no real prephrials for it other than a lame keyboard and mouse from microsloth.

I get 10 hours from it with light on and 20+ hours with no light on the Z without a 802.11 card running in it on and transmitting. I dont care WHAT device you have transmitting take lots of energy.

The Ipaq by the way has a much shorter life with 802.11 running.. and the HP journadas.. Worthless..

Re:It's quite simple..

[Daniel Phillips]

The best reason to use bluetooth is to link your cellphone with your PDA or laptop. 802.11 is total overkill for that. Your batteries will die in 20 minutes trying to power a 2-foot link.

This is pretty much what Bluetooth boosters like to claim, yes, but I doubt there's any substance to it. Run 802.11 at lower power and power consumption will be similar to Bluetooth. So it really comes down to other factors, such as: which is simpler? Seems to me 802.11 wins this one by a wide margin. Which is more widely deployed? 802.11 again. Which costs less? Which has less IP encumbrance? And so on.

I say, bury Bluetooth now and let's move forward.

Too Early

[Ken@WearableTech]

Right now I use four BT devices, I just bought a new one this week. The author seems to want 802.11 to replace BT radios. Would I like a cell phone with 801.11, sure! Is it realalistic? Maybe not.

The author makes good points about the nature of Bluetooth and it's "profiles" can be troublesome and feel limiting, but if they replace my Jabra 200 with 802.11 I doubt it is going to have anymore features than the current headset profile, it will just have a different radio.

Proxim & AiroNet where around for years and years before WiFi got hot, and I think good cheap routers and AP's from Linksys;-) and D-Link helped spur that. Today I saw the Jabra headset for $65 @ CompUSA and a Belkin USB Adapter for $35. I think BT is just starting to hit it's stride.

Re:Too Early

[FeloniousPunk]

I think BT is just starting to hit it's stride.
I do, too. I chalked this up to the absurdly short attention span in the media these days... if a promising technology that got hyped a few times in a tech magazine somewhere doesn't alter the face of telecommunications as we know it in 3 months, it's declared "dead." It's ridiculous, really. BT has definite uses and purposes that are not efficiently met by other technologies, and to declare it a failure after so short a time is rubbish.

very US centric perspective

[73939133]

Bluetooth is widely used outside the US. And it works well for applications beyond headsets, like synchronizing PDAs and desktops, mobile web access from your PDA, and wireless printing. Bluetooth is far more secure for things like wireless keyboards and will probably take over in that area.

Bluetooth is easier to configure and administer than 802.11a/b/g--people can just do it themselves. And Bluetooth has much better battery life and smaller antennas.

I don't understand the reluctance of US cell phone carriers to offer Bluetooth-capable phones--they are not significantly more expensive than equivalent non-Bluetooth phones. I sometimes think that they don't offer it because they want to control how you access the Internet through their networks. With Bluetooth, you can easily and comfortably use your laptop or PDA, and your own software, to access the Internet through your cell phone. IR and wired, OTOH, iareso cumbersome that most people don't bother, if they are even available.

Look for Bluetooth for your next cell phone and PDA. Consider getting a Bluetooth access point for better battery life from your PDA and laptop. Bluetooth isn't expensive and it's pretty nice.

Note that there are long-range versions of Bluetooth (300ft) and that there are high-speed versions in development.

Re:very US centric perspective

[aallan]

I don't understand the reluctance of US cell phone carriers to offer Bluetooth-capable phones...

I don't understand US cell phone carriers in general, they don't actually seem to understand the capabilities of their own kit. They especially don't seem to understand why cell phone usage hasn't changed t he US culture as it has in Europe (and perhaps especially the UK).

The fact that any eight year old over here, who probably owns at least two cell phones if they're British, could tell them doesn't seem to sink in.

Oh well, until you guys finally catch up we can all make lots of money selling you five year old technology that we've all gotten bored of...

Al.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

After hearing all the hype about bluetooth, and since I have a bluetooth enabled PDA, I thought I would try out a bluetooth access point to connect to a small LAN. It took me almost 7 hours to get the thing set up properly so I could even make the connection... once I did get a connection (From 2 feet away) I could not stay connected to the access point for more than 60 seconds before I was disconnected.

For a new technology that is supposed to be easy to configure and administer, this sure didn't give me any warm fuzzies about the technology. This was by far the worst experience I've had with tryng to configure and use a wireless device. If bluetooth isn't dead, it should be! The stuff is useless!

- Slew -

Re:very US centric perspective

[Borg_5x8]

Bluetooth is expensive in phones, because retailers charge a premium for "business-grade" phones; correct me if I'm wrong, but here in the UK at least, bluetooth in phones is seen as a busisnessman's tech toy.

Re:very US centric perspective

[FeloniousPunk]

I share your puzzlement over US cell phone carriers to an extent, but your statement about how cell phone usage hasn't changed culture in the US as it supposedly has in Europe puzzles me. Having lived significant amounts of time in both places (US and Europe, Germany to be precise, and there until the end of 2002), I found cell phone usage in the US population, at least where I live, to be about the same as in Germany. And there as here, a lot of people I know are doing away with landline phones at their residences entirely and relying solely on cell phones.
So maybe you can point out to me what cultural changes there are on your side of the lake that I've missed?

Re:very US centric perspective

[aallan]

Having lived significant amounts of time in both places (US and Europe, Germany to be precise, and there until the end of 2002), I found cell phone usage in the US population, at least where I live, to be about the same as in Germany.

Hmm, maybe I mean changes in the UK culture then, rather than European culture in general, although the Italians are as mad about mobile phones as we Brits...

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, text messages. Must derided on the US side of the pond, here in the UK they have become a way of life, I know people who rarely actually use their phones for voice but send alot of SMS messages. Like email they are something which can be replied to at the reciever convenience (unlike a "proper" phone call) and are extrememly useful in noisy (or public) situtations (pubs, trains, in the car).

Secondly, having spent large amounts of time abroad in countries where mobile phones haven't made such inroads into the population (like the States, and Germany), the concept of "I'll meet you at 7pm on Tuesday night in such and such a place, and we'll do this" has pretty much disappeared. Things like going down the pub, and other social interaction, have become much more fluid.

Also, meeting people in general has become easier, if you're due to meet someone you can send them a text (or even phone them) to say you'll be five minutes late, or could you meet them somewhere else other than the "planned" place. It sounds trivial, but the cultural change is actually quite profound when you come to think about it.

Secondly, mobile data, WAP was a dismal failure even in the UK with mobile phone addicted culture, but "real" mobile data over GPRS is starting to make significant headway, and MMS (multimedia messaging) is actually starting to take off (despite everyone saying it would be another WAP).

Al.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

People try to spin the differences in mobile phone usage as a cultural thing, but the behavior you observe could easily be explained by just looking at the pricing plans.

Classic example is text messages. I have more talk minutes than I can use for a flatrate, but SMS costs $.20 per message. Considering that speaking is easier, why the fuck would one ever use that? I've been told that the cost structure is exactly the opposite in the UK.

Re:very US centric perspective

[psychosis]

I have to agree with you - bluetooth is really underrated, and is just starting to get wider consumer-level support. I bought a Sony Ericsson T68i GSM mobile phone specifically because of the bluetooth support. I've got a Palm TungstenT and a Sony Ericsson HBH-60 headset, and the combo of these devices is just awesome.
I keep the phone in my backpack, or in one of the cubbies on the dash if I'm driving. I keep the headset on in the car, or handy if I'm walking around. If I want to browse via the Tungsten, I just fire up the browser app, which logs me into AT&T the wireless net via the T68i's GPRS modem.
For phone usage, I can just tap a phone number from the address book, which dials the phone, and then I can use the headset to take the call, and take notes on the Tungsten, if needed.
One of my next projects is to put one of the USBbluetooth stubs into the living room PC so I can browse via the Tungsten at home, but not eat up the AT&T data allotment.

Re:very US centric perspective

[aallan]

Classic example is text messages. I have more talk minutes than I can use for a flatrate, but SMS costs $.20 per message. Considering that speaking is easier, why the fuck would one ever use that? I've been told that the cost structure is exactly the opposite in the UK.

While most people have an allocated number of 'free' text messages if they're on contract, the vast bulk of the mobile phones in the UK are on a pay as you go plan (no contract, you pay for your outgoing calls only and you still get a heavily subsidised handset), and at that point an SMS costs around 5 to 10p (approx. 8 to 16c at current exchaneg rates). Not so different.

Al.

Re:very US centric perspective

[osgeek]

A couple of factors make the US markets very different:

• We've got a lot of ground to cover per capita. When a wireless telco has to provide decent coverage over such vast areas, they have less money to spend on upgrading to the latest technology. For Europe, SE Asia and other areas where cell phone usage has skyrocketed, you'll find that the per-cell-site number of users is much higher than here in the US. More dense user areas mean much less overhead and hassle for the wireless telcos.
• Our land line telcos don't suck ass as badly as most of the rest of the world's. For years, people in the US giggled or shook their heads sadly when they heard about the expenses that Europeans were burdened with just to have a regular phone line. "No flat rate calling? You poor bastards!" Consequently, the impetus to switch to cell phones has been that much less.
  
  For example, I spent some time living in Thailand. The main telco in Bangkok is government owned, so it sucks beyond belief. Want a phone line? Sure, you'll have installed within 3 or 4 months, assuming they can allocate the lines at all. And then, once you get that phone line, you're paying 2 to 3 times as much as someone in the US for it. My office there had a 128k line in a posh downtown office (about 2 years ago), and it was $1500 a month! Jeez... a DSL line here at the same speed (and a hell of a lot more reliable) is $45 per month.
  
  So is it any wonder that cell phones would be popular in such hostile land line environments?

It just goes to show, that having it in one part of life can really hurt you in another part, or when things change.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't hold that against Bluetooth. There are bad 802.11b products as well. I took me hours to set up an 802.11b network the first time around. All that 802.11b encryption stuff is way beyond what most people can deal with (802.1x makes it even worse). Operating systems differ in the string key encoding algorithms they use. In order to set up 802.11b/g/a, you have to deal with channels, operating modes, roaming, and all sorts of complications.

Bluetooth does what it's supposed to do: short range connections of devices. I have had no trouble using it for connecting my laptop, phone, headset, network, modems, and PDAs, and setup is usually no harder than pushing a button on each device and typing in a number--much easier than 802.11.

Note that if your PDA was a Palm, Palm's Bluetooth software used to be completely useless, and it is still somewhat flaky. Sony is a bit better, but they are also constrained by PalmOS. PalmOS has both seriously broken system-level Bluetooth support, and their user interface supporting also is confusing and inconsistent. Don't blame the Bluetooth for the incompetence of a particular vendor (whether that vendor be Palm or anybody else).

Re:very US centric perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

But Bluetooth isn't expensive to the mobile phone companies. They could easily provide Bluetooth phones. In fact, soon, US cell phone companies won't have much of a choice because most phones will just come with it, and then it sounds like some of them will actually try to disable it.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Like email they are something which can be replied to at the reciever convenience

<AnonCoward> Considering that speaking is easier, why the fuck would one ever use that?

You get a D-. You would've gotten an F, but you wrote your reply in a literate manner.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Doppler00]

US cell phone carriers are too busy selling people custom "ring tones" for $1 each. Wow... isn't that an amazing inovation? Ring tones...

The problem is, U.S. cell phone carriers are not interested in innovation. I've been waiting for years for a cellphone I could check my e-mail on without getting some outrageous service fee.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a 'brit' and yeah the uk s pretty together in terms of the mobile front. I'd like to point out Finland (home of nokia and the frist gsm call and network) has 4 million mobile with a population of 5 million.

I get signal everywhere. underground middle of a forest. EVERYWHERE.

Calls are cheap, sms is huge (not as big as asia they send liek stupid ammounts like 10 times that of the uk per person) and GPRS is cheap. Curently 16â for unlimited unmetred access per month.

And I agree the states is no where near europe in temrs of mobile culture and technology.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Cato]

This argument comes up again and again - check the population densities of Scandinavia, which has amazingly good mobile coverage even north of the Arctic circle. They aren't very different from the US.

Almost nobody in Europe switches from land line to mobile for cost reasons - most countries have had competition in land lines for at least five years, and land lines are still much cheaper per minute than mobiles, and with lower monthly charges. However, many people prefer to just get calls on their mobile so they don't miss them. Comparing the US to Thailand is hardly fair, as the latter is still a developing economy - more sensible to compare to European countries.

The main reason mobiles haven't taken off so much in the US is regulation: (1) there are three conflicting digital standards vs the single global standard elsewhere (GSM), due to laissez-faire regulation by the FCC, and (2) no separate area code was allocated for mobiles (unlike Europe) meaning that callers can't tell they are calling a mobile, which means that they can't be charged extra for the call. The result of (2) is that mobile phone users must pay for all incoming calls, and don't give out their mobile number (or just turn off the mobile phone).

Re:very US centric perspective

[allanj]

[snip]... and at that point an SMS costs around 5 to 10p (approx. 8 to 16c at current exchaneg[sic] rates)... [snip]

That much? Most carriers in my country offer SMS at 3c-5c a piece, and some even offer them for free, along with heavily subsidized handsets (routinely below $20 a piece for a moderately advanced model). Maybe that's the reason why everybody and his little sister uses SMS all the time. In schools, the passing of little handwritten notes has been completely taken over by sending SMS'es. With group sending capabilities and the incredible ability (and agility) to type messages at high speed on a tiny keyboard without looking, it's a HUGE hit with the teen and pre-teen crowd. An old fart like myself can hardly figure out where 'space' is on the damn tiny thing, but almost everyone under the age of 20 seems to have a sort of 'SMS-mode' in their hands. Not sure whether it's impressive or scary...

But have you noticed how advertising for cell phones has moved away from phone calls? Now it's color screens, multimedia/animations, digital cameras, polyphonic ringtones, embedded games etc that makes a selling. No one is really interested in whether it can reliably carry a phone call or send an SMS, because that's a given fact now. With the HUGE success of SMS, they're all scrambling to develop the next killer app for cell phones, and it'll be interesting to see what it is.

Re:very US centric perspective

[osgeek]

This argument comes up again and again

Because it's an argument with a lot of merit.

- check the population densities of Scandinavia, which has amazingly good mobile coverage even north of the Arctic circle. They aren't very different from the US.

If someone is surmouting that barrier doesn't mean that the argument is incorrect. Maybe Scandinavian wireless telcos are goverment subsidized like everything else there. Maybe their Arctic Circle coverage is heavily subsidized by the rest of their business. The fact remains that building a huge nationwide network in the US is an extraordinarily expensive, time consuming, difficult proposition. When you add in the financial return because of population densities here and the competition of cheap land line alternatives, the reason why commercial success of cell phone companies (and thus technology) lags the rest of the world becomes more obvious. Sheesh, a few friends of mine and I could get together and pool our money to afford enough cell sites to cover Scandanavia. :) In the US, we're talking about billions and billions of dollars just to get a basic network built out.

(1) there are three conflicting digital standards vs the single global standard elsewhere (GSM), due to laissez-faire regulation by the FCC, and

What, you think your average American cares that his phone won't work in Bulgaria if they happen to be there? Hardly. When a user here signs up for cell phone use, they only expect to be able to use their phone anywhere they happen to be -- which for 95% of the target market is within about 20 miles of their homes.

Yeah, the FCC was fairly hands-off. Usually, you want that in a government. Sometimes it bites you in the butt. I could go through a long list of failed technologies mandated by governments that should have been left to the free markets.

(2) no separate area code was allocated for mobiles (unlike Europe) meaning that callers can't tell they are calling a mobile, which means that they can't be charged extra for the call. The result of (2) is that mobile phone users must pay for all incoming calls, and don't give out their mobile number (or just turn off the mobile phone).

This has been a small pressure point for consumers in the past, but probably not as big a fact as the expenses that telcos have to go through to build a nationwide network in the US. Plus, this problem goes hand-in-hand with the land line quality issue anyhow. US consumers have good land lines. They're easy to get, cheap, and reliable. With the increasing availability of semi flat-rate calling blocks, we should see an explosion of cell phone use if you're correct about the main factors of lagging US wireless telcos.

Btw, I sell infrastructure solutions to many of the major cell phone companies here in the US and a couple abroad. I know a little something about what I'm talking about.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Cato]

Building a US-wide network is even more expensive than it should be, because there are 4 equipment markets for the cell towers and supporting kit - CDMA, GSM, TDMA and Analogue. Scandinavian telcos can benefit from economies of scale in the world-wide GSM market, which is about 80% of all subscribers. And not everything is government subsidised in Scandinavia, though certainly that's more true than the US - one reason they had just about the world's first cellular networks is that they have very inhospitable terrain and climate that makes it difficult to run land lines in some parts of the country.

> (1) conflicting standards

Good to see you proving the US-centric point there - rest of world != Bulgaria, and in fact good GSM coverage makes it easier to use a cell phone almost any country in the world, as well as parts of the US where your telco doesn't have coverage but another GSM telco does. Are you really saying that 95% of Americans don't travel more than 20 miles from their homes? Many of them drive much further than that just to visit friends, and people seem much more willing to hop on a plane than in Europe.

> (2) separate area code

Strangely enough, Europeans have good land lines as well - perhaps not as cheap as the US but not far off. There are bundled and unlimited minutes plans, at least in the UK, but those are mainly for Internet users who aren't on broadband yet.

I really don't get the argument that good land lines mean cell phones aren't needed - they are fundamentally different products, and once people get used to the convenience of a cell phone they are usually reluctant to go back. People tend to travel and commute more than they used to a few decades before, and expect to be able to contact whoever they want to - land lines just don't fulfil this need.

Cell phones are increasing their penetration of the US population - this is partly due to implementation of cross-network SMS (text messaging), which took off a few years ago in Europe and Asia. For example, US reality TV shows using SMS for voting are seeing huge month by month increases in usage.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Smitty825]

Good to see you proving the US-centric point there - rest of world != Bulgaria, and in fact good GSM coverage makes it easier to use a cell phone almost any country in the world, as well as parts of the US where your telco doesn't have coverage but another GSM telco does. Are you really saying that 95% of Americans don't travel more than 20 miles from their homes? Many of them drive much further than that just to visit friends, and people seem much more willing to hop on a plane than in Europe.

Geez...GSM is the World Standard again? In the last 6 months, here are the countries I've been to: Colombia, Brazil, China, Japan and South Korea. I was able to pick up a GSM signal on my AT&T Wireless GSM phone in Brazil and China. My Verizon phone, which uses CDMA worked fine in Japan, Colombia, and South Korea.

IMHO, you don't want too much governmental regulation. If someone develops a wireless idea that is very good, then don't allow the government to block the useage of that because some official someplace got a kick back from a competitor!

What's going to be the best next generation technology? CDMA? UMTS (WCDMA)? XYZ? Let's let the operators figure out which will provide the best "bang for the buck" and let them compete!

Re:very US centric perspective

[zaibutsu]

The SMS usage I see takes place on trains and buses.

An enormous number of kids seem to spend their entire journey texting each other. It's cheap and nobody can overhear them.

In the US traveling by car is the norm where it isn't so socialy acceptable to ignore everyone around you and just sit there texting.

Re:very US centric perspective

[costas]

I think it boils down to one reason and one reason only: calling party pays. The rest of the world has it, the US does not. In the US, if you get called on your cell, you pay the extra part of the bill (the diff between local and cell rates, in essence). This goes back to the inane decision of having cell phones share area codes with fixed-line (why? the US had call-forwarding for a long time, which is essentially the equivalent of what's in place today... never figured that one out) and the fact that most US consumers have flat-rate, all-you-can-talk plans for local calls, unlike the rest of the world.

So, everything evens out; the US has much worse mobile usage patterns, but they do have unlimited local calls, dirt cheap long-distance and also pretty cheap mobile calling plans. What's missing is the utter ubiquity of cell phones that exists in europe (where back home 12 buys you a GSM SIM card in the corner kiosk w/ prepaid calling time...) OTOH europeans are still getting ripped off from getting charged for fixed line service in the same way as in the pre-digital switching times. Which one's worse?

Re:very US centric perspective

[jvalenzu]

I don't understand US cell phone carriers in general, they don't actually seem to understand the capabilities of their own kit. They especially don't seem to understand why cell phone usage hasn't changed t he US culture as it has in Europe (and perhaps especially the UK).

Probably because early adopters of technology in the US - geeks - don't have anybody to call. Perhaps they should bundled some friends with their free minutes.

Re:very US centric perspective

[Cato]

According to http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/index.shtm l there are 4 GSM telcos in Colombia and 2 in South Korea, so perhaps it is probably just a matter of coverage where you were - other parts of those countries might have had poor CDMA coverage. There's no GSM in Japan, which is one of the few countries without GSM.

There are lots of great wireless developments coming out of Europe, in both handsets and infrastructure - GSM is somewhat like the Intel architecture PC, it constrains you in some areas but enables huge innovation in others because it's a volume market with high levels of competition. The laissez-faire approach in the US has enabled CDMA to flourish but has also led to smaller isolated handset and infrastructure markets.

I agree

[bazabba]

It has limitations, but wireless is wireless. As the article mentioned IR has limitations...but it's stuck around to an extent. I wouldn't mind seeing bluetooth integrated into more home electronics/appliances.

Re:I agree

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

i wouldn't mind a bluetooth toaster and juicer. I wake up, wander down stairs with my PDA in hand checking my email and other news, and POP, my toast is ready and my OJ's already done.

Bluetooth

[Luigi30]

Don't you know? If you brush the transmitter with a toothbrush, it turns into Whitetooth and doesn't get that nasty Gingivitis virus!

Short distance wireless - wow!

[Monte]

Let's see, we've had short distance wireless comm via infrared for what - a quarter of a decade?

Yet another solution in search of a problem.

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Monte]

Decade, century, whatever... where's my remote...

click. click. click.

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

IR requires unobstructed line of sight, I tried using it a few times for various computer applications, and it sucked. Bluetooth requires no such thing and is therefore better.

IR is best suited for stuff like TV remotes and such.

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Infrared is troublesomely line-of-sight, BT at least fixes that problem. As far as I know, it has higher bandwidth as well.

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Monte]

IR requires unobstructed line of sight

The fact that I just put my Replay on Pause while pointing the remote away from the unit would seem to suggest otherwise - light bounces. Good thing, too.

The bottom line is for anything that's as short-haul as Bluetooth I think either IR or a good old-fashioned cable would suffice. I just don't see the problem that Bluetooth solves.

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you have a storage/processing device in your pocket or backpack and a human interface device on your wrist or in your eye/ear? IR can't gonna go through cloth and flesh, bluetooth can. There you go. A problem bluetooth solves efficiently. Narrow niche, but it exists.

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Monte]

What if you have a storage/processing device in your pocket or backpack and a human interface device on your wrist or in your eye/ear?

What if I have a wolf in the garage and a sheep in the attic? I'm sorry, but I just don't have these issues, and I doubt many people do. For "small" devices I want to share data with I have:

1) IR
2) Flash memory (CF cards, smart media et al)
3) Wires (gasp!), USB and Firewire work very well, thank you.

Those are all good enough for connecting me to DVR, DVD, CD player, tuner, digital camera, scanner, laptop, musical instuments, MP3 player, PDA, etc etc etc.

This seems to take care of all my needs at present. I can't imagine something that I need to put on my wrist that has to sync with every bloody thing in the house within an eyeblink. Not to mention adding additional noise pollution to the airwaves.

For longer-haul/big bandwidth I have 802.11b, and I love being able to sit on the front porch surfing the net. Or d/l movies from my Replay DVR to my laptop,

I'm all for tools, but before I buy it I have to find a use for it, and I can't see the use for Bluetooth, at least in my life. [shrug]

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I just don't have these issues, and I doubt many people do.

You don't keep your phone in your backpack, briefcase, or other piece of personal kit? What a weirdo you are. Either that, or you must have a dozen hands. Wait... I guess that would also make you a weirdo. Either way, weirdo.

USB and Firewire work very well, thank you.

Your phone has a USB or FireWire port on it? No, of course not. Instead, your phone has a special data port (if it has a data port at all) that requires an exotic and expensive cable (or worse, docking connector) to interface with your computer. And it probably requires a special driver, too.

My phone (a T68i) has no external ports, requires no cables exotic or otherwise, and no special drivers. It just syncs right up to my computer, easy as can be.

For some tasks, USB and FireWire work very well. For others, they work very poorly. Bluetooth is suited for those applications.

I can't imagine something that I need to put on my wrist that has to sync with every bloody thing in the house within an eyeblink. Not to mention adding additional noise pollution to the airwaves.

You must not own a cell phone. It's not on your wrist, and it doesn't need to sync in an eyeblink, but it's small, and it needs to sync.

And as for noise pollution, Bluetooth is short-range and low-power. It pollutes the airwaves in a sphere about fifteen feet across.

Re:Short distance wireless - wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

The signal from a remote control carries so little data that it doesn't make much sense to compare it to actual data transfer via infrared, which does indeed require an unobstructed line of sight to work and have reasonable bandwidth.

I have three ways that I can connect my laptop and my cell phone (especially useful for net connectivity over GPRS) - infrared, cable and Bluetooth. Infrared is almost useless for this, because you have to have a flat surface and keep both components in place. A cable would work, but Bluetooth is by far the most convenient. I can just leave my cell phone lying on a table (or keep it in my pocket) and carry my laptop around with no wires attached.

Oh, and another practical issue - I can have my cell phone plugged into the charger while using Bluetooth; I couldn't if I was using a cable. Of course that's also a design problem with the phone.

Why Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi

[prostoalex]

This story sounds like a wrap-up of an SNS issue, written by analyst Mark Anderson about half a year ago. Yes, Bluetooth has essentially failed to deliver promises on its wild popularity, and Wi-Fi is the NBT (Next Big Thing). However, it's important to remember that Bluetooth and Wi-Fi were designed for different reasons.

If Bob Frankston were writing for an automotive magazine, he'd probably write a subheading 'Why has car business flourished while bikes have essentially failed? Should we even care about bikes?' If you want to connect to the Internet and have wireless access within your house or in the hotel room, use Wi-Fi. But what if all you want is to have devices talk to one another? Remote control to your car computer, telephone handset to the telephone base, PDA to the laptop, etc.? In some cases Bluetooth makes sense more than 802.11b, if you consider cost of deployment and power consumption issues.

Thus Bluetooth is not really a competitor, it's a niche technology that's out there and that's getting more attention from manufacturers. Wi-Fi is immensely bigger and more marketable, but in the nutshell Bluetooth has its own applications and will persist in hardware design for next few years.

Re:Why Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi

[DarkVein]

However, it's important to remember that Bluetooth and Wi-Fi were designed for different reasons.

Which is why Bluetooth was (not) designed against interfering with WiFi? Unless you've got one of those dandy combo Bluetooth/WiFi chipsets, putting a bluetooth device next to a WiFi device or access point is a great way to jam individual WiFi device.

I know 2.4Ghz is that tiny unregulated low-power space that everyone has to put their happy device in, and we can point blamey fingers at the guv'ment for that. But, seriously, it doesn't have to be so abusive. It doesn't have to cause interference at all, but WiFi and Bluetooth are both dumb-at-the-nodes, and Bluetooth is the radio bully. As it is, you have to choose LAN/Internet, or wireless headset.

I don't see the need for Bluetooth, personally. Low powered, short range WiFi, IPv6, and zeroconf, could make a fucking beautiful marriage for wireless devices. You can encrypt the traffic, if you want to pay the battery time--but the cost/effectiveness there is equal with Bluetooth. There's a tiny overhead in metadata, but you're using existing technology in innovative ways (capitalizing on established growth industries), and your hardware is WAY more versatile (read: useful, servicable) by being able to connect to any network for any purpose it can serve--without a bluetooth technology license.

Bah.

Re:Why Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why Bluetooth was (not) designed against interfering with WiFi?

Bluetooth wasn't designed with interference avoidance because it's so low power.

Unless you've got one of those dandy combo Bluetooth/WiFi chipsets, putting a bluetooth device next to a WiFi device or access point is a great way to jam individual WiFi device.

That's funny. I use my T68i and my Power Mac all the time with no trouble at all. The phone stays in my backpack, which is under the desk. The computer with its 802.11b adapter sits about three feet away from it. My Bluetooth headset, of course, sits on my desk in its charger except when I'm talking on it, which is pretty regularly. No interference of any kind.

Low powered, short range WiFi, IPv6, and zeroconf, could make a fucking beautiful marriage for wireless devices.

If wishes were horses, we'd all... how does that saying go?

Re:Why Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi

[aaarrrgggh]

I don't see the need for Bluetooth, personally. Low powered, short range WiFi, IPv6, and zeroconf, could make a fucking beautiful marriage for wireless devices.

Throw in VOIP, and not only do you have a bunch of cool buzzwords, you might actually have something that could make some money.

The ad-hoc networking function could just be at a higher level...

BT is great but not universal solution!

[Libor Vanek]

BT is great for what is was intended - hands free sets, communication between handy & PDA/notebook (IrDA sucks!). There is no other technology for this - IrDA requires direct visibility and WiFi takes too much power.

Just as I predicted. Good call.

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched a CNNfn show couple of years back where they covered Ericson, Sony, and Bluetooth how it would change the world in a year time. I immediately thought this to be the dumbest thing to see such wide adoptation amongst consumers.

Fistly, it's expensive as fuck. Just to get a simple module for Palm devices would cost you in the upwards of $80+ USD. Right. I'll use the RF.

Screw their overpriced shit. If you're going wireless, wait for 802.11x, because soon it'll power pretty much anything in the future.

"I don't understand it; it can't possibly survive"

[mattdm]

The replies on zdnet pretty much sum up everything there is to say already: Bluetooth and 802.11b serve entirely different purposes. It's like saying "I don't understand why we have boats when cars are so good and popular". Bluetooth is for ad-hoc very-short-range wireless networks -- of *course* it's not going to succeed as a replacement for 802.11. But it doesn't need to, as they're not competitors.

I remember reading a while ago that the goal is to make it cost about $1.00 to add bluetooth to ANY device, *including* engineering costs. That might not be here yet, but it's somewhere that 802.11 isn't ever going to go.

The American perspective?

[aallan]

This is just the American slant on mobile technology showing through again, I think most Europeans wouldn't share the view that Bluetooth is dead. Heck, Bluetooth useage is still growing (quickly) over here.

What I don't get is why the guy is even compaing it with 802.11b? Its not even aimed at the same niche. Bluetooth is so that my laptop, my PDA, my cellphone and my desktop or car onboard computer (and sat nav) can all toalk to each other. The entire point is that its tied to a small radius. I don't want my cellphone trying to use my bluetooth enabled hands free car kit if I'm sitting in my office...

Al.

Different goals

[SailorFrag]

I thought that 802.11b and bluetooth had very different goals... bluetooth sounded to me to have goals similar to USB, while 802.11b has goals similar to ethernet (ok, flawed analogy, but they're definitely not the same thing).

Bluetooth's range is probably more a result of its power requirements than the protocol itself... you don't want to waste a ton of power connecting a cell phone to a PDA for a low speed link. It's just easier than IR. An application I was reading about would be using a laptop to connect to a cell phone's GPRS while the phone is clipped on your belt, instead of having to sit it on the table for IR.

The article might as while try saying that connecting a PDA via IR is useless because you could use a cellular PCMCIA card.

It just never measured up to the hype

[nano2nd]

When I first heard about bluetooth a good few years ago, it was billed as not just the end of wires but the end of the bulky cellphone handset.

The sales pitch described how you'd be able to leave your phone in your hotel room and take calls via the wireless headset while sat in the bar downstairs. Sounded great. Trouble was, it took much longer to get any product to market and when they did, it was expensive and the functionality was pretty flawed.

Just like WAP, the marketeers told a great story and just like WAP, the reality was pretty disappointing...

Re:It just never measured up to the hype

[rbbs]

I have no idea where you heard that pitch, but it wasn't from anyone who actually knew anything about bluetooth...
if you want to know something about bluetooth, look here:

http://www.csr.com/applications/bt-why.htm

(ignore the redundant 64 bit key point...)

Bluetooth vs 802.11...?

[bad_fx]

Is this really a fair comparison? Sure they operate on the same set of frequencies, but I was under the impression they are designed for completely different purposes. Bluetooth as a very low power, short range convenience technology while 802.11 offers full wireless ethernet. Sure, maybe Bluetooth isn't as great as all the hype, but is it really that informative or relavent to compare it to 802.11?

Re:Bluetooth vs 802.11...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, they coexist perfectly, and are used for totally different purposes. The author has no idea what he's on about and certainly shouldn't be writing about something like the death of Bluetooth. Sure there are more 802.11x products being released, but Bluetooth is cheaper and more readily being applied to existing products.

Comparing 802.11 to Bluetooth is like moaning cos your keyboard doesn't support IP. It doesn't need to. An IP-enabled keyboard would do the same as a Bluetooth one, but need an IP, more configuration and use a fraction of the bandwidth available - totally pointless.

There is always a valid reason for 2 equivalent technologies to exist; cost and implementation. Costwise, Bluetooth is much cheaper to add to a device than 802.11, you don't want an IP-enabled 802.11 keyboard, printer or mouse. Why? Because like their parallel, PS2 or serial cousins, they require a certain degree of proximity to function properly.

Bluetooth is not dead. It's certainly more 'niche' than 802.11, but 802.11 for me was a substitue technology - it replaced ethernet and allowed local roaming. Bluetooth has added functionality to my devices. I don't have to arse around lining up IR ports on my PDA and phone, I don't have to fumble in my pocket to answer an incoming call, and I don't have to get my phone out of my bag to retrieve email. It has really easy to use handshaking method and it just works, period. No fiddling with addresses and suchlike, it does what it says on the box and it does it well. The bottom line is; Bluetooth has made my life easier and improved the way I do things, 802.11 has enabled me to do what I did before, with no cable.

On a technical note, isn't 802.11 a replacement physical layer, while Bluetooth is an entirely new protocol and physical layer? If so, how do the two compare?

*All* the limitations?

[TummyX]

it still has all of the limitations of wires.

Except for the *wires* part!

I have a bluetooth headset that I use with my cellphone and it's much more convenient than corded headsets which almost always get tangled and broken.

I have about 4 headsets here with the wires torn out of the earpiece which usually results from the wires getting caught on something while I'm running.

Bluetooth has its place. It's designed for PANs(personal area networks) where WiFi would be way overkill.

Re:*All* the limitations?

[Jellybob]

It's also good for PDA internet access... using IR you had to line everything up, and then once it was done, hope a heavy wind didn't push them out of alignment.

With Bluetooth I can leave the phone in my pocket so long as it's turned on, and use the PDA from my hand.

shame

[ciroknight]

Bluetooth had promise. I'de love to have a bluetooth based house, but now it looks like that's a pipe dream. I thought of even wiring my refridgerator with a bluetooth based digital camera, to give me a picture of what I have so I don't have to go open the door to know, and so I know what to buy. Also thought about bluetooth keys, so I'de never lose those again. And what about bluetooth toaster/alarm clock, when the alarm goes off, the toast is made and all is well... Oh well, thats how things go...

Re:shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, when the door is closed, it's dark in there.

Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotted already

Sorry for the karma whoring but here is the google cache">google cache.

The news of Bluetooth's death is premature

[meador]

The current wave of cell phones supporting bluetooth should pull the standard through. I was recently able to deploy 3 new phones with identical corporate (large) phone books without pulling numbers in by hand OR buying yet another cell adapter OR schleeping down to the verizon store. It was Useful Technology. (tm) I think I may pick up a bluetooth keyboard and mouse as test items.

Or vs and

[makkverk]

Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?

If it is too early to declare the death of Bluetooth then we can expect more out of it.

Dont get 'and' and/or 'or' mixed up. Especially on slashdot.

Um...

[mrjah]

Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?

Are these two clauses redundant, or do they say the same thing?

Killed by his WiFi ;)

[RobertTaylor]

The king died killing his sons, I hope Bluetooth doesnt get killed by his WiFi (wife)!

Taxi!

And to your left...

[Exiler]

You see a sterile, erm, wired geek.

At what point did putting a bunch of PAN devices that broadcast a moderatly high frequency signal all over ones body become a good idea? I know it wouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances, but theres always going to be some very, very gadget-laden people...

Re:And to your left...

[znu]

Last time I checked, there still wasn't any sold evidence of EM radiation being dangerous. The only measurable effect when it hits flesh is a small localized temperature increase.

Re:And to your left...

[Breakfast Pants]

I think my skin cancer from the sun's UV rays is pretty "sold" evidence. UV rays are EM radiation are they not?

Re:And to your left...

[znu]

Of course, but they're not in the applicable frequencies (in fact, they're in the opposite direction), and the Sun is rather more powerful than a Bluetooth transmitter.

Re:And to your left...

[BrainInAJar]

Radio waves are much longer than UV, IIRC the spectrum is something like Gamma rays (will penetrate skin, wood, steel... pretty much whatever you throw at it with the exception of some dense elements like lead, and cause all sorts of problems) X-rays (penetrate skin, can cause cancer, not as bad as gamma), UV (penetrates skin, but not far. causes skin cancer, the rest of your body is okay), Visible light (no penetration. no cancer). microwaves (excites water molecules, not much else) and then, we go off to radio waves. radiowaves don't have nearly enough energy to do anything at all to you, particularly slice apart DNA (which is where the cancer problems come from)

These aren't gamma ray devices we're talking about, not even UV devices... they're long wave devices, which are harmless

Re:And to your left...

[BrainInAJar]

Oops... forgot infrared. it's between visible and microwave. you can't get cancer from it either, just warm.

Re:And to your left...

[ReaperOfSouls]

microwaves (excites water molecules, not much else)

Actually, microwaves can excite most anything, as long as it is tuned to the molecules you are trying to exite. Since water just happens to be contained in nearly everything fleashy, it make sense for microwave ovens to be tuned to water.

Re:And to your left...

[jolshefsky]

At what point did putting a bunch of PAN devices that broadcast a moderatly high frequency signal all over ones body become a good idea?

[smacks own head; rolls eyes]

I was just thinking about how people don't understand this ionizing/non-ionizing radiation. Consider a 100 watt light bulb. How long would it take for you to burn to death at 1 meter? Consider a 10,000 watt light bulb. How long would it take for you to burn to death at 1 meter?

Consider a 1000 watt microwave oven versus a 0.400 watt microwave oven (i.e. ~2GHz cell phone) in the same respects.

Re:And to your left...

[onthefenceman]

I wouldn't worry about this one. Most geeks of that magnitude don't get to find out if they're sterile or not. Now the possible effects of the networked PDA erasing the memory on the tri-corder...THAT is worth investigating!

Re:And to your left...

[alienw]

So, what exactly are a bunch of low-power radio transmitters going to do? You need hundreds of watts at close range to do any real damage. Those devices typically transmit in the hundreds of MILLIwatts. Hell, you probably get the equivalent power density from your local radio or TV stations, not to mention cell phones, car keys, and whatnot. This is a non-issue.

Bluetooth is dying.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's official. Netcraft now confirms: Bluetooth is dying.

To quote Mark Twain...

[VCAGuy]

"I did not attend his funeral; but I wrote a nice letter saying I approved of it."

Somebody get this guy a Mac

[phillymjs]

I've got a T68i. It syncs with Entourage on both my Power Mac and my iBook. It acts as a modem for my iBook when I need it. It interacts beautifully with the Address Book app on both Macs, letting me make and take calls and send and receive SMS. It works great with my Plantronics M1000 headset, letting me make and take calls in the car without having to take my eyes off the road, fumble around for the handset, or worry about catching wires on anything. And it does all of these things while still sitting in my pocket.

Bluetooth may not be perfect in its current incarnation, but it's a damn sight better than keying in all my contacts with a numeric keypad, or having to buy a stupid proprietary cable to connect the phone to anything.

~Philly

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[Libor Vanek]

Give this man a fish - he has got a point ;-)

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[Lumpy]

It works great with my Plantronics M1000 headset, letting me make and take calls in the car without having to take my eyes off the road,

Until they make it easy to recharge this stuff it is going to be a nitche item.

I had one of those headsets, it was dead more often than not because you HAVE to remember to recharge it.. Oh. buy like I enjoy taking 20 minutes every night to plug in the tons of different items.

Why dont personal electronics use simple inductive coupling for charging so I can throw everything on my charging mat and call it done?

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[phillymjs]

I had one of those headsets, it was dead more often than not because you HAVE to remember to recharge it.

I never found this to be a problem. I hook up the phone and headset every night-- I keep the chargers where I keep my wallet and keys, so it's not too tough to remember to plug the stuff in when I empty my pockets at night. I've had them since January and never ran out of juice yet on either one.

~Philly

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

it was a joke. the ti-86 is a graphing calculator.

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[Zero Zero]

I'll second that; I've got a T68i, a PowerBook 12", and Palm's Tungsten T, and they all work beautifully together; you can do all Philly says and more.

Tap the HotSync icon on the Palm, and the other two devices light up and start syncing information with it. Add to that the ability to do light web browsing on the Palm from anywhere, not just within hotspots, with the phone in your pocket doing the heavy lifting, and you've got got all the info you really need, with you at all times.

Additionally, shareware programs like Salling Clicker let you control PowerPoint, DVD Player, and iTunes right from the phone; you can even trigger events using a proximity sensor, so that (for example) your email client quits when you walk out of the room.

It all works, and it works well. Maybe Apple's integration allowed stuff like this to be developed more quickly, but there's no reason one couldn't make this all happen on Windows or Linux as well. Don't confuse poor implementation or application of a protocol on a given platform with its overall failure.

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[cheekyboy]

yeah it works great on macs, i tried syncing on a windows box, and the software/setup is such a pain, what a crock of complex shyte.

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[metamatic]

I remember not long ago when Slashdot had an anti-Mac bias. Maybe, just maybe, things have changed because Apple has done a lot of stuff right?

Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac

[GlassUser]

I believe you're looking for something like a magnetic induction charging pad:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2861987.stm

Bluetooth is great!

[CausticWindow]

Having a Bluetooth enabled mobile phone is great. I can upload/download files, synch with my pc etc. With one of those nice file managers for Symbian, and a nice big memory card, it's bliss.

My new Nokia can even play video files. Mmm.. mobile pron.

The article btw, must be written by an American. Over here, there's lots of people using Bluetooth.

Works great..

[PhoenixK7]

Works great on my iBook with a Bluetooth dongle and my T68i. I've been using it to keep contacts in sync for the past 3 months with narry an issue. On top of that, it works great as a wireless remote using Salling Clicker. You can control anything that works with AppleScript. I've used it for presentations, controlling itunes, and playing DVDs. Sounds like the grass is greener here, than on the other side of the fence.

I'm sick of people claiming this or that thing is dead, or is going to be dead. As long as it works well for someone, and fits a niche better than any other product its alive! As long as its supported by OS X, I'll be using it. And from the looks of Apple's front page, as well as their inclusion of bluetooth adapters in their recent machines it looks like it'll be around for quite some time.

Umm wrong...

[SkewlD00d]

Bluetooth is going to be and IS already used in all kinds of things... In fact, the company I worked for is going to replace all their silly serial cables and random cruft of proprietary data cables w/ all or mostly all bluetooth and 802.11. Bluetooth is perfect for short-range data sync'ing like Palm base, car computer diagnositic eqpmnt, and there's even bluetooth headsets that work w/ cell-phones and other things. Bluetooth is definitely not dead, it's just lost it's hype. And M$FT is trying to push it's UPnP as THE way, next wintel will push for their own wireless "STD."

<predictions>
The next technologies we'll see deployed are passive cavity (this is not a pun) resonator circuits (no on-board power) that emit an ID code or do some basic processing on nanopower. Your groceries wont have UPCs, they'll have some little "patch" or "splatch" circuit that'll emit some tiny RF signal when a RF beam is aimed at it. "That'll keep those nerds from constructing a UPC database of our products, and make those CueCats obsolete."
</predictions>

I'm suspecting...

[cethiesus]

...that this Bob guy is just a clever program that glues buzzwords together with random English words. Really, it's hard to figure out what this article is saying...Bluetooth is dying because it solves only one problem and isn't 802.11?

Wait a minute, this "guy" works at Microsoft...RUN FOR YOUR LIVES MICROSOFT BOB IS SENTIENT!

Re:I'm suspecting...

[bad_fx]

Introducing the new paradigm in proactive tech article authoring, the fault-tolerant, Integrated dynamic Bob Franklinâ! With this revolutionary, vision-oriented, optimizing software package, you too can write misinfor... err... versitile, even-keeled tech articles! Utilitising a data-warehousing, datamining system along with well-modulated neural GUI synchronisers and Quality-focused methodology, you'll be the envy of all devolved scalable migration distributed multimedia coporations!!! With such realistic standalone client-server model it'll fool even your upward-trending Exclusive RAD/JAD bugetary manager!!

This article misses an important point

[drinkypoo]

That bluetooth and 802.11 are not competitors. They are complementary to one another. Bluetooth is useful for cheap low-speed networking between peripheral devices and a PC. Implementing 802.11 is more expensive than implementing bluetooth. 802.11 only provides a transport layer, but Bluetooth has classes of devices - they may suck, but at least if you support them correctly, you will be able to interoperate. 802.11 requires drivers for each device, and you must be able to speak to them, which means (realistically) they have to speak IP (at least today.) You cannot expect people to add additional network stacks to support, say, a webcam, after all. IPv6 would work, but it's not as widely supported as would reasonably be required. Yet.

Bluetooth is for headsets and keyboards. 802.11 is for connecting hosts. If a device is legitimately a server then it makes sense to put it on 802.11, such as those little webcams with a streaming and/or web server on them.

If 802.11::Ethernet, then Bluetooth:: ??

[Anonymous Coward]

802.11 is to Ethernet
Bluetooth is to USB

Do you need ethernet to conenct your keyboard, or is a serial connection sufficient?

Do you need WiFi to connect your Headset to your phone, or is a bluetooth connection sufficient, and A LOT easier on battery life?

(If the SAT verbal questions were like this, I would have done a lot better)

Old news

[Jonathan]

Typical Slashdot. Bluetooth has been dead since 981 and only *now* we have an article? Is this news for nerds or news for fans of dead Danish kings?

Re:Old news

[alecto]

Nice! "I learned something today!"

Did Netcraft report this?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about *BSD devices with Bluetooth?

Re:Did Netcraft report this?

[exspecto]

They shall die doubly dead.

Har har har

[Anonymous Coward]

Very funny. Get thee back to the Bob Saget school of comedy TOOT SWEET.

Re:Har har har

[Anonymous Coward]

Tout suite. It's French. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Mobitopia

[bhny]

Mobitopia had an article about this

I guess this guy doesn't own many gadgets.
My desk is a tangle of wires for my phone/palm pilot/camera/midi keyboard/headphones and usb doodads.
Bluetooth is perfect for sorting out this mess.

Re:Mobitopia

[east coast]

"My desk is a tangle of wires for my phone/palm pilot/camera/midi keyboard/headphones and usb doodads. Bluetooth is perfect for sorting out this mess."

Most people don't really own that many gadgets. That's what it comes down to; the masses. bluetooth isn't going to last very long without public acceptance and Joe Q on the street is going to be more impressed with the speed and distance of 802.11x and for that fact alone it's going to bury BT. Regardless of what technology is correct for what job the public isn't going to see it that way.

On top of that it doesn't seem cost effective. The last time I stopped to look at BT devices it was 150 USD for a keyboard and mouse. You can buy both of these with wires for less than 20% of that price. The technology might be neat but a vast majority of the public simply isn't going to pay that kind of mark-up for a minor convenience, not to mention the cost of any batteries or the problems that arise from rechargeable devices.

Re:Mobitopia

[deaddrunk]

Geeks are always the first buyers of new tech, often at the inflated prices manufacturers need to cover development costs and therefore allows them to bring down prices for the masses. CD players used to be a expensive toy too.

MOD PARENT UP, FUNNY!

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP!

Death? Noway!

[ciantic]

By myself i think bluetooth has a cold start nothing else. I think it has lots of possibilites in future.

Bluetooth has different purpose, nature, etc.

[eggboard]

I wrote a rebuttal to Frankston on my Wi-Fi web log a few days ago (archive link):

Legendary computer guru Bob Frankston says Bluetooth failed: I'd argue that it still could be saved. Bluetooth required many different pieces to be useful, some of which needed massive investment and retooling. For instance, Microsoft only offers limited Bluetooth features (dial-up networking, cable replacement, input device), so Windows users who try to use Bluetooth may require special drivers for individual devices, and have a horrible experience compared to Mac users. Apple has integrated and sophisticated Bluetooth support since Mac OS X 10.2 last August (it just got updated today, too). Apple doesn't yet support printing.

Wi-Fi got the kickstart in that two Wi-Fi devices (an access point and a client) make Wi-Fi worthwhile. Add a second, a third, a 10th client, and it becomes indispensible. Put it in a public place, and you've got a new industry. Microsoft gave Wi-Fi full support in Windows XP; Apple way back in 1999 in Mac OS 8.

Wi-Fi's utility grows as more distinct locations are added -- even if it's just your home, favorite coffeeshop, work. Bluetooth requires many devices, all of which can talk to each other, and OS support, to be minimally useful and doesn't benefit from widespread deployment.

Setting up Wi-Fi can sometimes be complicated, but generally a default DHCP client configuration get you most of the way there, and then you login if it's an account-based service. Bluetooth's configuration can have 30 or 40 steps just to get all the devices talking and in the right mode.

Bluetooth is showing up prebuilt into tens of millions of computing units this year: handhelds, laptops, other devices. The tipping point has arrived, and it will either finally catch fire -- probably only if GPRS service becomes affordable -- or burn out.

Bluetooth's big advantages over Wi-Fi were supposed to be cost for the chips, power consumption, and ease of ad hoc setup. None of those except power appear to be true yet!

Re:Bluetooth has different purpose, nature, etc.

[wskellenger]

I'd have to disagree with a couple of your points:

Bluetooth setup requires 30-40 steps.
Check out the Palm Tungsten|T, Ericsson T39 (a two year old phone), or Ericsson T68. To get my Tungsten|T to talk to my T39, setup was quite easy. As soon as the two devices are near each other, they easily "discover" each other. Then simply tell the two to connect. You supply a few digit code on the Tungsten (say 123), and then phone will require you to echo those digits ONCE. Those devices are now trusted and further setup is not necessary.

I write SMS messages to anyone in my Palm's address book and send them to other's cellphones with my Palm while the BT phone is in my pocket. Really slick.

Bluetooth doesn't benefit from more widespread deployment.
Imagine walking into your favorite pub and browsing the brew list on your cellphone or PDA before the server gets to you... Or reviewing the specials at your leisure?

Bluetooth requires many devices to be minimally useful.
Always wanted to browse the web from my bathroom. Requires two devices: My internet-connected home computer with a $30 Bluetooth dongle and my Tungsten|T with a browser installed.

Also find interesting utility during meetings: A simple glance at my colleague at the other end of the conference room and we both pick up our Tungstens. An instant later we're using Palm's "Blueboard", a shared drawing application where we can both doodle on the screen in real-time. Palm's "Bluechat" allows chatting between the two devices as well. Since his device is already "trusted", connection is as simply as tapping "Accept" when my Palm wakes up and tells me that someone wants to "draw with me". Most of the time I have to turn the device off and put it down as I can't stifle my laughter for too long...

But back to the article... As many have already said, Frankston seems to miss the point of BT completely. 802.11b is great to keep my laptop talking to shared drives and a Lotus Notes server while in our office building, but seems like overkill for the small bandwidth of SMS messaging from Palm-->Phone or doodling back and forth between two small, low-powered devices.

--Bill

Re:Bluetooth has different purpose, nature, etc.

[eggboard]

These are excellent elaborations -- let clarify that I mean that for Bluetooth to be successful, it needs to be universally as simple as your experience, and to have utility that doesn't require massive deployment of resources. Wi-Fi is pretty simple to use, and it's more useful, the more nodes, even though it's very useful with just two nodes.

I have a T68i phone, and what you describe as "telling the two to connect" requires diving down into the T68i menu through several screens (all easy enough, but still, those are steps) and then choosing Discoverable. You have to know that when you enter the passphrase to pair the T68i, that the passphrase uses one of three input methods on the phone -- you don't get access to the rotation of text characteres by continuously pressing the same key, for instance, but use a less-common T68i method for entering, so i rely on numbers.

Under Windows, even with a single adapter, you have to setup and choose several options to get the phone to hook up. It mostly works. But the problem is that when you start writing down instructions for someone to pair and use the devices, you easily get into 30 or 40 steps even for the T68i and a Windows or Mac computer -- even if those steps are choose Menu A. Choose Menu B. Click OK. Go to the other computer. I may have too many discrete items on my steps' list.

Re:Bluetooth has different purpose, nature, etc.

[wskellenger]

I was not aware (until reading this thread) that the Mac OS X has already included BT support...! Admittedly that after I got my BT phone I bought the Tungsten just to play... Suddenly I thought of all sorts of possibilities!

Another problem: Very few phones include BT. Nokia includes it on two phones available right now ... One is older and rather large, the second is IMO ugly with a strange round keypad and a camera for around $500. Ericsson has a couple of offerings and Siemens I think has one or two. All are at the higher-end and more expensive.

Keep in mind that once you've done the connection with your T68, the device should be trusted and you should only need to keep Bluetooth turned "on" (it doesn't need to be discoverable anymore) and you can easily talk with that trusted device. This is how I can pull my Tungsten out of my pocket, select a friend from the address book and tap "SMS". Compose a message and hit send. It automatically finds the phone and sends the message as the phone and the Palm are both in the trusted devices list.

Off-topic: The T68 text entering method I think you're referring to is called "T9". I also have a Siemens mobile (minus Bluetooth :) that has this entry method. Try this:

To switch from T9 to multitap, try holding down the '*' or '#' key, and you should see a menu that allows you to get into and out of T9 quickly.

Another tip: To easily enter numbers in multitap mode, press and hold the number and it will bypass all other available letters and jump straight to the digit.

Best regards,

--Bill

Re:Bluetooth has different purpose, nature, etc.

[gid-goo]

If you're in the US: The nokia 3650 is $0 after rebates at Amazon right now. Before the rebates it's $399.

bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion

[wfmcwalter]

A few years ago (probably three, I think) I did some business with a company who made both solutions and complete products for both proprietary wireless systems and the then-new 802.11 and bluetooth markets (guessing which is left as an exercise). I asked their tech-sales guy which of the latter pair he thought would win, or would they both succeed - "only 802.11" he replied, "without a doubt".

I responded (as have many slashdotters above) that surely the two weren't for the same task, and thus were surely destined to exist in parallel, in adjacent market sectors. He told me this wouldn't be true, and his explanation went something like this:

Bluetooth has two main selling points:

1. it's a far simpler protocol, which means a smaller, cheaper digital side (fewer, smaller, slower, cooler, lower-power parts)
2. it's lower powered, which means a cheaper analog side (and less power consumption, and thus longer battery life)

But, he predicted, both of these would be eroded quickly. The former would vanish, he said, when both bluetooth and 802.11 are cost-reduced down to single-chip solutions (which now they mostly are). Sure, the 802.11 chip is bigger than its bluetooth buddy, but the cost-differential is pretty slight.

The latter would still apply, but he predicted (and it's come true, although not yet productised) that the 802.11 folks would produce a low-power, short-range version.

So one of Bluetooth's advantages (for its own market) is largely obviated, the latter partially so. Set this against the economies of scale that 802.11 enjoys, and the greatly enhanced oppertunities for interoperation that the dominant standard enjoys, and the "roaming" use of Bluetooth is beaten, resoundingly.

Bluetooth had two other markets in mind:

• as a desktop "wire replacement", for keyboards, mice, etc., essentially replacing the many proprietary protocols in that space, and for stuff for which we now use USB. Bluetooth can't beat USB on cost or performance, which leaves only the mouse and keyboard market. Sure, it would be nice if your digital camera or mp3 player would just "see" the PC without your having to hook up some cables, but the cable burden isn't that onerous. Now, 802.11 may be cheap, but I think it'll be a few years yet before I have an 802.11 mouse. So there is a market there for bluetooth, but it's small, and bluetooth isn't compelling enough to displace the proprietary guys there.
• the true "personal area network", where all the devices I wear interact with one another, and dock to my pc when I sit at my desk. Well, all those devices (PDAs, cameras, cellphones, mp3) have (or are now) converging on a single device (which we call a phone, 'though it is many things besides). This leaves bluetooth with another thin market segment - connecting cellphones to PCs. Again, cheap fast cables, IRDA, and proprietary RF solutions all own this space, and again bluetooth isn't compelling enough to displace them.

Every product has to answer the same challenge - not "are you useful" but "are you useful ENOUGH".

Re:bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion

[Zebbers]

umm.....theres this thing called interference. if you use 802.11 as an overkill solution for all the little range devices its going to be virtual suicide for itself.
thats where bluetooth shines

an 802.11 mouse? give me a break. you must be joking right?

Re:bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion

[Long Duk Dong]

This leaves bluetooth with another thin market segment - connecting cellphones to PCs. Again, cheap fast cables, IRDA, and proprietary RF solutions all own this space, and again bluetooth isn't compelling enough to displace them.

Had this article come up a month ago I would have agreed with you, but after purchasing a new cellphone (Sony Ericsson T68i) I would have to disagree with this point. My new cellphone is capable of using images for wallpapers. Unfortunately, I don't own a laptop or any other device with a IRda port. So I looked into purchasing a IRda port for my desktop, $40. Seems a bit expensive for a piece of outdated technology. I could purchase a cable to connect my phone directly to my desktop (USB or RS-232), but the cables run about $40 as well. The USB cable has an upside of being able to charge my phone while connected to my computer. But then again, I can only use this $40 cable for my phone. Since my phone is bluetooth enabled I took a look at BT adapters. BINGO, only $30 for a BT USB adapter. It's cheaper, and faster than a IRda adapter and it has the potential for other uses besides my phone (keyboard, mouse, etc)

Re:bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, 802.11 may be cheap, but I think it'll be a few years yet before I have an 802.11 mouse."

It will be more like never. I have a feeling what may be more widely implemented is Wireless USB. It is perfect for keyboards, mice, and anything else that is already USB. Plus it's very low power consumption and low latency, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is standard on next generation game consoles too. This product recently came out and I have seen prototypes of converted peripherals, not to mention this little news blurb.

Re:bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion

[Methuseus]

I don't see why they're making all these "all in one" devices. I want a cell phone that calls people, and maybe has SMS. I want an MP3 player that stores and plays MP3 files. I want a PDA that does all the stuff you want a PDA for. I want a digital camera by itself for the obvious reason that the ones built into phones, PDA's, etc, generally suck.

I want a few simple devices that each do their own thing and do it well. I want a PDA I can actually use, not one shaped like a phone. And I want a phone shaped like a phone, not like a PDA. And I want to leave my MP3 player in the car so I don't lose it accidentally.

I really don't get this kick on all in one devices when most of them are pretty crappy, and you have to skimp on at least one of the functions every time. I'd rather have a few devices that all work and are uncomplicated.

Re:bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion

[wfmcwalter]

The USB cable has an upside of being able to charge my phone while connected to my computer. But then again, I can only use this $40 cable for my phone. Since my phone is bluetooth

I had a similar choice (heck, without that nice USB option) on my Nokia phone. It felt a _lot_ like the Bluetooth mafia making me an offer I couldn't refuse. That $40 for the USB cable in criminal. I bet it's not a USB-OTG connector, but some hideous proprietary one.. A standard cable would cost what, $5? As a big Bluetooth IP owner/vendor, Ericsson has an agenda of its own, which doesn't necessarily mean always giving you the best choices.

So that's Ericsson's plan - they priced the cable HIGHER than the Bluetooth connector so they could strongarm you into being a Bluetooth adopter, and made it a proprietary connector so they couldn't be undersold by a generic supplier.

If bluetooth could stand on its own technical merits then they wouldn't have to resort to such gangsterism.

blue tooth won't die

[jr87]

it'll just fade away

Re:blue tooth won't die

[Anonymous Coward]

Elegy For *BSD

I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.

Er an AC karma whoring ??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't get it, sorry.

A wired standard would be more useful to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need or want wireless. It's unnecessary data leakage that can be spied on. I want a standard type of cable / connector / protocol that will let me do all these bluetoothy things with wires.

The biggest advantage of bluetooth was not to replace the wires, but to provide a standard. But I want the standard with wires.

A standardised socket on my palmpilot, my phone, my computer, my car and headset that carries data (and optionally power so my mobile devices can be powered from my the car and possibly use it's antenna) would have been all I wanted and wouldn't have been difficult.

Re:A wired standard would be more useful to me.

[wfmcwalter]

USB does everything you ask, including the power, very well. Just about the only thing that it lacks, and that your applications above really call for, is a lightweight connector. If they standardised a little clip-in edge connector (like the ones that PCMCIA modems use to connect to the phoneline-adaptor dongle thing) for stuff like your earphones, then you'd be set.

For all I know, the USB folks do have such a standard mini-connector.

Re:A wired standard would be more useful to me.

[wfmcwalter]

Yep, no sooner posted than googled. It's called "USB on the go (OTG)". See:

here and here and here.

Re:Er an AC karma whoring ??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Try clicking the link

Way off article

[nordicfrost]

This article is mislead in so many ways. People here have covered the fact that BT and WIFI are ment to co-exist, so I'll skip that.

Anyone who have seen an Apple intergrate with an Ericsson t68i will be convinced that BT is a killer app. It works seamlessly and is so beautifully integrated that I could cry with joy when I get to send an SMS on-screen "just like that".

BT suffers from ONE thing only. Bastard companies that love proprietary devices. Like Nokia. Nokias BT headset twists the BT regulations by transmitting the audio through data profiles, not audio profiles like it is supposed to. So you can't get cheat headsets for Nokia until someone makes a data-only headset. This is killing BT, not lack of usage. BT along with Airport is a marriage made in heaven.

Visit us in Europe, and see that BT is in daily usage mr. Frankston.

BONUS: Try the Bluetooth pic-swap-game! The rules are simple. Be sure to have a cool picture of yourself on your fancy-schmancy phone. Nudeness optional, but recommended. Keep Bluetooth enabled on the phone (Notice how this does not drain your batteries like you were jump-starting an F-16) When bored, search for other phones in public places. When you finde a phone, transmit the picture and it will pop up like a message on the other phone. If the other person is cool and tech-savvy like you, (s)he will transmit a pic back. Yay!

Re:Way off article

[kayen_telva]

wow, sending naked pics to strangers
the must have features of bluetooth grow by the minute

Re:Way off article

[dswensen]

Nudeness optional, but recommended.

The kind of person who would be interested in this kind of game, you would probably not want to see naked.

Re:Way off article

[TummyX]

So you can't get cheat headsets for Nokia until someone makes a data-only headset. This is killing BT, not lack of usage. BT along with Airport is a marriage made in heaven.


Most bluetooth headsets work with Nokia phones that support bluetooth. I'm using a Jabra BT200 with my 6310i and it works great.

PS. Nokia is being a bitch wrt bluetooth. New Nokia phones don't even have bluetooth support!

Re:Way off article

[Anonymous Coward]

BONUS: Try the Bluetooth pic-swap-game! The rules are simple. Be sure to have a cool picture of yourself on your fancy-schmancy phone. Nudeness optional, but recommended. Keep Bluetooth enabled on the phone (Notice how this does not drain your batteries like you were jump-starting an F-16) When bored, search for other phones in public places. When you finde a phone, transmit the picture and it will pop up like a message on the other phone. If the other person is cool and tech-savvy like you, (s)he will transmit a pic back. Yay!

I know which picture I want to use.

Re:Way off article

[IronChef]

...When bored, search for other phones in public places. When you finde a phone, transmit the picture and it will pop up like a message on the other phone.

I do something similar with my iPAQ PDA. I made a contact named "Bluetooth Drive-By" and I upload it to other folks' PDAs when they come within range.

Of course, there are never other Bluetooth PDAs in range. Anywhere. But I remain hopeful!

Re:Way off article

[Anonymous Coward]

F-16s don't "jump start", as they have an onboard JFS (Jet Fuel Starter).

Re:DEATH OF CLIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I dl a bot to get FP?

Sounds good to me...

[fm6]

How far do you need to get from your cell phone? It's a portable device fer crisakes. Anyway, if you did your math, you'd find that 10 meters is a little less than 33 feet. So you're getting almost 50% of the spec. Perhaps you're batteries were low?

I don't want a PDA/phone. That means I can't use the PDA and talk on the phone at the same time. And devices that try to comprimise between PDA and phone functions are generally not that good at either.

What I do want is a phone headset that I can use without risk of garroting myself. And I want to browse the web using a portable device I already own and am familiar with: a Palm m515.

If the restriction to Bluetooth applications is, "The phone must be in your pocket, not on your desk," I think I can live with that!

Re:Sounds good to me...

[tolan-b]

the p800 has perfectly useable pda functions imho, and it works in speakerphone mode or with handsfree while using pda functions.

Re:Sounds good to me...

[tolan-b]

i find the p800 pda functionality to be fine. i certainly prefer it to my palm. and it works in speakerphone or with a headset, while making calls

Re:Sounds good to me...

[tolan-b]

doh... 'scuse the double post.

Re:Sounds good to me...

[scpotter]

Right on about bluetooth implementation. As a pda/phone user, I'd point out that phone/pda makers offer features that enhance a headset more than standard cell phones- for example voice dialing/answering works very well and some offer IVR menus and macros. I'd guess this is because the pda aspect dictates the form factor of the device, which is not a great form for a phone. Between synching and headsets, bluetooth is perfect for the phone/pda market.

That means I can't use the PDA and talk on the phone at the same time.

Not exactly true. The phone/pda combos I've used (Kyocera 61xx, 71xx & Handspring 300) will let you use the palm while talking, but I'm pretty sure they won't let you browse the internet. Your options are to talk on a headset or use speakerphone. I've used this mostly for setting appointment times/dates or looking up phone numbers to give to whoever called. After using a pda/phone for a year now I won't go back. It's replaced my laptop for most uses- it's always on, always with me, and more usable on mass transit or other cramped spaces. It definitely has its drawbacks, but it's the solution that works best for me.

question

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got an iBook and am interested in using bluetooth technology soon. When you say you can make and take calls, do you mean your iBook can do this? Or does the iBook just dial the number? Would it be possible to use headphones and the iBook's mic to perform a phone call via bluetooth?

Re:question

[phillymjs]

Currently, the iBook will tell the phone to initiate the call or to accept the incoming call-- you still have to use the handset to actually speak to the person on the other end. When I last tried it, I couldn't use my headset with the phone while it was connected to the iBook.

I expect that eventually the integration will be tightened up a bit so the Mac will channel the calls through its mic and speakers, or through a paired Bluetooth headset.

~Philly

Surprised it lasted this long

[moankey]

Bluetooth has been dead since its release. It was touted as all these great things, but got delayed left and right. When it did come out it wasnt all that great and worked 50%.
Anyone that has worked with it will agree.

For some reason large comapanies are still selling their popular products with a Bluetooth version even though I have never seen anyone say " I have to go get this Bluetooth (fill in product)."

Not what the author expected != "Dead"

[qtp]

Bluetooth is likely to live on in simple appliances.

Such as (here, have a free idea) a wristwatch that adjusts its time when you leave the house, or disembark from a train or airplane.

I'm no expert at Bluetooth (or much else), but it seems usefull for many trivial, low data, short distance networking problems.

--qtp

Reasons for non-adoption

[PHAEDRU5]

1. Bluetooth devices. What bluetooth devices? A Microsoft keyboard and mouse do no a summer make.

2. Development tools. I can write a Java app. and use ordinary TCP/IP on a WiFi device. I've yetto see anything like this for Bluetooth.

So, no hardware, no software, and WiFi coming on strong. Bluetooth is heading for death.

Re:Reasons for non-adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

the new palm, the new sony? You are misinformed. A summer they do make while i rear you w/ my poor ingles.

bluetooth is almost dead no standards enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an appalling lack of standards. There is no guarrantee that a bluetooth device will work with any other bluetooth device.

It depends entirely on whether the manufacturer created the correct profiles for the device. Many bluetooth keyboards only work with that manufacturers' dongle. Want to use your bluetooth keyboard with your bluetooth-equipped laptop? Tough. Buy another bluetooth usb dongle.

When bluetooth works, it;'s nice. But it won't work, AT ALL, with many device pairs. It's a crapshoot.

802.11b gives me mobility

[Roblimo]

With 802.11b I can work on my laptop in my living room, on my sunporch, in my yard or even across the street.

I can go to a friend's house and get online instantly without plugging anything in or messing around with IP settings, thanks to DHCP + 80211.b. Conversely, I can invite friends over and they can be online instantly at my place.

802.11b has totally changed the concept of "office" for me. I no longer really have or need one, just a drawer to hold a few paper files and a place to pu my printer -- specifically in the cabinet under my TV, along with my DSL modem and WAP/router.

Once in a long while when I'm away from home and there's no better connection available, I use my cell phone to connect my laptop to the Internet. I don't find a wire between the phone and the laptop inconvenient. I don't really mind a wire between my cell phone and headset, either, since I only plug in the headset for long calls.

My refrigerator, TV, electric stove, microwave oven, bathtub, and the pair of plastic pink flamingos in my back yard all seem to function just fine without being connected to each other or the Internet.

Okay, so Bluetooth is groovy if you want to walk around festooned with gadgets and don't want to have wires running between them. Most of us don't do that. Really, we don't. And I don't think a large percentage of the population ever will. What's the point? Aren't we connected enough already?

More and more, I find myself leaving my cell phone home when I go to the beach or the market or kayaking or whatever. I like (and NEED) breaks from instant access to stay sane.

I simply haven't figured out what Bluetooth would do for me besides eliminating the (short, easily controlled) wire between my cell phone and headset, and the wired laptop/cell phone connection I rarely use because cell phone connectivity is slow and expensive.

So I don't care about Bluetooth. Neither, as far as I can tell, do 99.9999999% of the other people on the planet.

- Robin

I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[fm6]

I use Bluetooth to connect my PDA to my GSM phone. Now I have access to Internet about everywhere through GPRS. I can do it at the restaurant table while dining with friends or while walking on the street when coming back from work.

OK, I demand to know your service provider. And how much do you end up spending on bandwidth? On the one hand GPRS doesn't cost for connect time (which is what I hate about my CDMA service), but on the other, bandwidth charges seem pretty high.

The reason Bluetooth doesn't take off is it is poorly marketed. It is waaay overpriced to get any widspread adoption.

I don't see that. I could get a Bluetooth phone for free with the usual 1-year commitment. And Bluetooth devices are relatively expensive (as new technology always is) but not that expensive.

What really hurt Bluetooth was they way it was overhyped a couple years ago, long before any product was actually available. Then when they actually started selling Bluetooth, nobody noticed. Especially since they managed to time things for the post-dotcom era, when nobody's buying new gadgets.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[PolR]

OK, I demand to know your service provider. And how much do you end up spending on bandwidth?

It is Fido in Canada. Bandwidth is a flat fee 50$ Canadian per month. This is the only Canadian provide that gets it. All other offer something ridiculous such as 5 cents per kbytes after the first 2 Mbytes. One can add an extra 25$ to his bill every thirty minutes.

I don't see that. I could get a Bluetooth phone for free with the usual 1-year commitment.

Hum, I suppose different market means different prices. Here in Canada only Fido and Rogers/AT&T offer a Bluetooth phone and it is the ultra high-end SonyEricsson T68i at 450$ CDN. We can't get it for free with any commitment.

How about the cost of a Bluetooth PDA? You don't find this feature standard on entry level devices. You have to go for the high midrange or high-end. Bluetooth doesn't come standard on entry level laptops either. Bluetooth cards (Compact Flash, SDIO or PCCard) costs around 200$ CDN. Add the costs of all components and you see it is not cheap. Most people will prefer to stick with cables.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[uradu]

> the ultra high-end SonyEricsson T68i at 450$ CDN

Well, not THAT ultra high-end, there are several models with more functionality that are more expensive. Plus, lately it's being discounted because SE is bringing out a successor with (what else?) a camera. You can find it on Amazon for $99 with a $100 rebate from T-Mobile. I'm tempted at the moment to get it, except for point two below.

> How about the cost of a Bluetooth PDA?

Exactly. To me, the PDA plus a few key devices (phone, storage, access point or PC integration) could be the Bluetooth killer app, if only anyone seriously pushed into the market as other than just a high-end checklist item. For example, I can get a BT Memory Stick card for my (cheap) Clie--but only from Europe or Asia for over $100, because Sony never targeted the US market for some reason. I'm certainly not going to spend more on the BT card than on my PDA and phone combined, and yet it would be an incredibly useful combination.

Of course, that also brings me to this ridiculous obsession with smaller and smaller memory media formats, which merely make it more difficult and expensive to integrate into the form factor the sorts of things people REALLY want to add on: communications and cameras, it seems. But that's another story...

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[fm6]

First prescription drugs, and now this! I don't know any U.S. provider that does flat-rate GPRS.

If I'm calculating this right, you often transfer around 1M an hour, which would cost C$50 (US$36) if you didn't have a flat-rate plan. OK, T-Mobile has a GPRS plan that costs US$20 (forgive me if I stop converting) for the first 5M and US$5 for each addition 1M. Quite a bit cheaper!

Another difference in the market: you can get a T68i for US$99 if you sign up for T-Mobile through Amazon. Also a Nokia 3650 for free. Curiously, these phones are not available from the T-Mobile web site.

A Bluetooth adapter for a PDA goes for about US$100. Not free, but not unreasonable if you already own a compatible PDA (which I do) and would be spending Us$30-40 for GPRS anyway.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[PolR]

If I'm calculating this right, you often transfer around 1M an hour, which would cost C$50 (US$36) if you didn't have a flat-rate plan. OK, T-Mobile has a GPRS plan that costs US$20 (forgive me if I stop converting) for the first 5M and US$5 for each addition 1M. Quite a bit cheaper!

Let's complete the computation. How many hours a month you would use the Internet on your cell phone? When compared to Fido @ 36$US per month, your T-Mobile plan has a breakeven point around 8.2 hours. If you use Internet more than that it will cost you more then 36$US a month.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[PolR]

> the ultra high-end SonyEricsson T68i at 450$ CDN

Well, not THAT ultra high-end, there are several models with more functionality that are more expensive. Plus, lately it's being discounted because SE is bringing out a successor with (what else?) a camera.

In Canada, the T68i is the top of the line.

Exactly. To me, the PDA plus a few key devices (phone, storage, access point or PC integration) could be the Bluetooth killer app, if only anyone seriously pushed into the market as other than just a high-end checklist item.

Amen. Don't forget about bringing the laptop in that PAN. When you have a PDA and a laptop to connect to the Internet and only one cell phone, better have a network.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[uradu]

> In Canada, the T68i is the top of the line.

They don't sell the P800 there?

> When you have a PDA and a laptop [...] better have a network.

Can a phone pair with more than one device at a time for network access? I haven't actually played with Bluetooth yet.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[PolR]

> In Canada, the T68i is the top of the line.

They don't sell the P800 there?

Not yet. Fido's web site reports it as "coming soon". Rogers/AT&T doesn't even mention it.

> When you have a PDA and a laptop [...] better have a network.

Can a phone pair with more than one device at a time for network access? I haven't actually played with Bluetooth yet.

Interesting question. I haven't tried to run two simultaneous communications. I don't have the hardware to do so. The manual says the phone can pair with as many as 10 devices in the sense of storing the pairing in its config but doesn't say if all the pairings can be active at the same time. It could be an either/or type of operation. In any case, it seems clear that the phone can be configured as an uplink for more than one device.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[fm6]

Yeah, if I had a choice, I'd choose Fido over T-Mobile. I don't really have a choice, unless my cell phone to have a Canadian area code!

The point of my calculations was to guess at how quickly US$1/M would add up, assuming your usage patterns are typical. That is a lot of money for just one megabyte. But then again GPRS is a pretty slow channel, and you'd probably want to browse in text only mode anyway. On that scale, 1M is a lot of content.

Re:I want your apples and your oranges!!!!!!!

[PolR]

But then again GPRS is a pretty slow channel, and you'd probably want to browse in text only mode anyway. On that scale, 1M is a lot of content.

You are right. 1M per hour is for pretty intensive usage. Other people may see something more like 500K/hour. I have tried browsing without images. Doesn't work well when you explore for sites using Google because there are too many sites where the text is coded into the images, especially for links. You can't find what you want unless you see them. Turning off images works when you go to favorites though.

Fido also includes with its service a proxy that does image compression to optimise link speed. I haven't tried it yet.

Too right man!

[gilesjuk]

We need a national bluetooth transmitter network!! then we can leave our mobile phones at home and use the headset where the hell we want.

Oh and we'll need a keypad to enter phone numbers, oh a display too, cus you need to see what you're dialing. Hmm this will need more power too, I think we'd better increase the size of the battery. Oh and I'm sure some people will prefer to hold the phone when speaking (pose value), so we'd better make it phone shaped.

Aww shucks it's a mobile phone again.....

Bluetooth is great for some things

[Eric Smith]

like cellular phone headsets. It's not intended to be the all-singing all-dancing wireless solution for everything. If you try to use it for purposes for which it is not well-suited, of course it's not going to be great.

A friend has a riding lawnmower. It's a great vehicle when used to mow the lawn. If you tried to use it for a trip to the grocery store, it would completely suck.

PAN, LAN, and WAN

[visionsofmcskill]

Many pundits in this long line of posts have repeatedly pointed out that bluetooth is intended to be a PAN technology (Personal Area Networking) And that the author is greviously wrong for thinking that bluetooth should be more robust at connecting to the internet.

To these many people, i must say your very very wrong. While bluetooth's focus should certainly be on nothing more than connecting to devices within it's limited range, it should also be VERY high on it's priorities to be highly compatable with the web in any and every respect possible. This functionality will allow bluetooth to gateway beyond it's limited scope. And lets face it folks the idea is to have your cell phone accesible from anywhere on the net given that you have proper authentication.

I should be able to leave my cell on my desk at home, go to work, or a friends, and if i need to connect to it remotly to dig up whatever i want.

The concept behind the address spac of IPv6 (really IPng) is to have address's for every device imaginable no matter how small it's role. And bluetooth would be wise to provide that functionality at least conceptualy. To treat the computer(s) it has access to as gateway's, and to offer it's (authorized) services beyond them or through them. The model for the internet addressing is two-tierd (network/host) and this has been found to be inefficient for the exact reasons why PAN networking needs to be fully functional and logisticly compatible with the entire internet.

Their are already plans and implementations floating around about how to deal with free form routing with wireless objects. Networks that create themselves automaticly... discovering gateways through each other without user interventions... so that if you walk into a room with a bunch of friends, your bluetooth cellphone has already discovered how to access the net through your buddies music player which routes through another cellphone upstairs, which bridges through a 802.11x base station (for whatever reason) which has also dynamicly located a WAN wireless station.

Oh i know the above is plagued with all kinds of technical difficulties at the moment, and some parts are non-sensible, but thats not the idea. The idea is everything is connected to everything else automaticly and wirelessly, while remaining secure... and while utilizing whatever transport medium is appropriate for them. Bluetooth for small close hand devices, 802.11x for LAN's etc.... wired systems for back bone data... and so on...

Re:PAN, LAN, and WAN

[Cato]

There's no conceptual problem with providing IP-addressable Bluetooth nodes. The main issues are implementation related, as you point out - however, these will also apply to WiFi if it's used between highly mobile routing nodes (not just end points talking to static access points).

Google for mobile ad hoc routing and the IETF's manet group for some work going on in this area - the problem is how do you route between nodes that can disappear (go out of range) at any time, and there are other interesting problems as well.

Many Bluetooth devices, e.g. phones, have IP stacks anyway. However, I'd like to see zeroconf with high security before we go to IP addresses on every BT device - otherwise it could be interesting trying to stop hack attacks, e.g. one on your BT headset that blasts thrash metal at your ear (substitute whatever sort of music you hate)...

Looks like BSD finally has some competition...

[Slack3r78]

According to this article, Bluetooth is deader than BSD! ;)

Where R the MP3 + Bluetooth devices?

[sllim]

I am waiting for that.
I have owned Walkmans of every type over the years, high quality, low quality, radios, tape players, CD players. The only exception is an MP3 device.
I have learned my lesson.

For whatever reason on ALL of these devices within a couple months of buying them I break the headphone jack on the device. It will get loose and start to loose the stereo sound and then eventually it won't be useable at all.
I have never had an understanding of what I was doing to break all of them.

But I do know that iPods and the like are way too expensive for me to just break them a month down the road.
A bluetooth iPod and a bluetooth enabled headset seems to me like a killer combination that would resolve that problem.

I am waiting....

Re:Where R the MP3 + Bluetooth devices?

[rbbs]

CD quality sound requires too much bandwidth (>768k/sec) and to have a decompressor in the headset would drain the battery and make it too big -

ergo - won't happen any time soon

(unless you don't mind mono sound)

Re:Where R the MP3 + Bluetooth devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Philips has a hi-fi headset with compression, but it is not a standard.

I'm sure it will appear as it is very useful for PC use. USB-BT dongle, headset, and you have an IP phone.

Re:Where R the MP3 + Bluetooth devices?

[evilviper]

I break the headphone jack on the device. It will get loose and start to loose the stereo sound and then eventually it won't be useable at all.

A soldering iron, solder, and five minutes, and your device will be like new.

The problem is just manufactures trying to make devices cheaper, and so they skimp on some important stuff (such as anchoring)

Re:Where R the MP3 + Bluetooth devices?

[nordicfrost]

Here it is!

+3 FUNNY!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the funnyist non Dr Sesus posts in this topic.

Yes the writer is a moron, and your redudant queston was great

Service discovery

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Bluetooth by itself is not a big deal. But combined with technology like Apple's Rendezvous, it's really cool. Apple seems to be imagining a future where you can walk around with your laptop, and services like printers become available immediately when they come within range, then disappear when you go out of range. To Apple, Bluetooth seems to be all about service discovery.

I think we're just waiting for the killer app. Syncing your cell phone may be fun, and cordless keyboards and mice may be cool, but neither are as big a deal as wireless Internet access on your front porch.

I haven't given up hope, though. Since Bluetooth is cheap and low-power, it's not going anywhere soon.

headphones

[Kenshin]

Nokia's headphones use their new PopPortâ connector.

It's really annoying, since their headphones cost C$40.

Re:headphones

[Moofie]

Has somebody kept track of exactly how many redundant connector designs Nokia has come up with?

That sort of engineering really irks me.

Schmootooth

[jav1231]

Everyone is making excellent points about how great the technology is at what it is designed to do. Bluetooth suffers from a very simple problem. Implementation. I've heard about Bluetooth for some 4 years now. Like VoIP maybe it just needs time. The difference is, bluetooth is for personal tech-toys, unlike VoIP. So it's likely to die before widespread acceptance can give it life. I don't own a single bluetooth enabled device for two reasons: a) it inflates the cost of whatever it's built into and b) it inflates the cost of whatever it's built into. Thus keeping me from buying two devices. :) Look, it may be great, the bomb, the mad-note, all of the above. But if you have to go find it or worse, wait for the great new PDA you really like to come with bluetooth, it's useless technology. Technology unused. Make it ubiquitous, like WiFi and it will live. Don't, and it's a hairless cat. Neat to look at...neat to tell your cat-loving friends you have one...but without a pair you've only got it till it dies...and it will. >

Re:Schmootooth

[Graymalkin]

My new 12" Powerbook has Bluetooth built into it. I didn't go looking for it nor was it a selling point of the computer but it is there. The next cell phone I buy is likely going to have Bluetooth in it as well, much to my enjoyment most likely. Bluetooth is ending up in all sorts of devices people are buying without them having to run out and pick it up. What you're seeing today is much like USB's rise several years ago. Slowly systems were released with USB available in the standard package which provided reason for third parties to develop USB hardware, they had a market to sell to.

Laptop and some desktop manufacturers are creating this demand with Bluetooth right now. I agree it may take some time for BT to become ubiquitous but the groundwork has been and is being laid now. In my case I'm going to end up with a Bluetooth camera/computer pair when I get a new phone. I'll likely look for more BT devices after that. Now that you can find PCs with BT as a standard feature I think people are looking at BT devices a bit more just as I am. It's on its way out and is quickly becoming ubiquitous.

Re:Schmootooth

[chundo]

Bluetooth hardware is very cheap (and all the needed R&D and testing tools have already been built by Ericsson). If the price is inflated, it's a marketing choice by the device manufacturer, and does not reflect the cost of the technology itself.

This is why it may die. Not because of a lack of usefulness or the actual cost of it - but because of the PERCEIVED cost of it. Manufacturers cannot break the habit of overpricing new devices, even when they have little to no R&D costs to recoup.

-j

I love Bluetooth

[Nexum]

I love Bluetooth, but I think the reason that so many people see it as pointless is becasue of the things they are able to do with it.

I have a PowerMac G4, and with the Bluetooth dongle from DLink I sync my contacts between my PC and phone, sync my schedule too (very handy) and also, when I'm around the Mac (as I am a LOT of the time) text messages will appear on the screen instead of the phone, and I can reply via my keyboard (heaven!).

I watch a lot of DiVX on my nice big screen and when I found that I can use as a remote control I was hooked! My Mac now plays music when I come back from a lecture and shuts up when I leave the room.

I love Bluetooth, I use it every day, and NO it is not the same as having cables. Windows users I feel sorry for, as MS seems to be ignoring all this great functionality.

Ok, it's NOT going to revolutionise your life, so STOP EXPECTING IT TO! But it is very handy and useful, and *cheap* too. Which is a big factor.

-Nex

Re:I love Bluetooth

[Nexum]

Fuck, should learn to

a. Preview
b. Close tags

Do columnists ever learn....

[haxor.dk]

...that declaring *anything* "dead" is a very risky business indeed?

what's the advantage over a cable?

[Trepidity]

I see wireless as primarily usefull when you're not 2 feet away. If the devices are within 2 feet of each other, how is Bluetooth easier than just hooking them up with a cable that takes about 1 second to plug in?

Re:what's the advantage over a cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the devices are within 2 feet of each other, how is Bluetooth easier than just hooking them up with a cable that takes about 1 second to plug in?

Because Bluetooth was designed to replace all those cables; to your keyboard, and your mouse, and your printer, and your PDA, and gamepad, and headphones, etc, etc. So it's not just one cable we're talking about, it's about getting rid of almost all of those fsck'ing cables going every which way around my desk.

Re:what's the advantage over a cable?

[Planesdragon]

If the devices are within 2 feet of each other, how is Bluetooth easier than just hooking them up with a cable that takes about 1 second to plug in?

If you can skip the wire, then you don't need to worry about the wire getting tangled, the wire getting lost, the wire getting broken--or wanting to plug in two things at once.

Let's say that, for the sake of argument I replace all of my signal wires with bluetooth, so my two printers, digital camera, and PDA all no longer need wires.

If a friend brings over a bluetooth-enabled laptop, they can just send the signal over without me fumbling for a cable that I don't use, or digging out my PC to get at the ports in the back. Similarly, if I buy a new PDA, I don't need to worry about getting a sync cradle.

It is easier. It may not be sufficiently easier to justify the expense, but it IS easier.

Re:what's the advantage over a cable?

[R.Caley]

If you can skip the wire, then you don't need to worry about the wire getting tangled, the wire getting lost, the wire getting broken--or wanting to plug in two things at once.

Instead you have to worry about interference, competition between devices, incompatability, ... :-).

Re:what's the advantage over a cable?

[plumby]

I can sync my phone with outlook without taking it out of my pocket. If I had to use cables, I'd either have to have a cable trailing into my trousers, or take my phone out and plug it in, and I know from experience that I'd end up forgetting it was there and leaving it on my desk.

who has 4 devices on them?

[Trepidity]

Very few people carry around a PDA, GPS, computer, and cell phone. Pretty much only rich people. And even many people who own them all don't carry them all the time. That's the whole point of small specialized devices -- so you can take just one with you. if you're always going to carry them all, might as well just get a laptop and carry that around, or one of the more powerful cell phone / PDA hybrids.

In short, this may fix your problem, but it's not a very common problem. I personally know about 2 people who own PDAs at all.

Re:who has 4 devices on them?

[Moofie]

I don't understand your argument.

People who don't carry lots of devices probably don't need those devices to talk to each other, and therefore Bluetooth is not useful or interesting for them.

People who do carry lots of devices whose abilities are complementary might want to have them connect to one another without wires. Those people will benefit from Bluetooth.

What is your point? Unless it's just trying to inject some class warfare bullshit...

Re:who has 4 devices on them?

[gid-goo]

Where in the name of tech nowhere do you work? You only know 2 people who own PDAs?

But even that doesn't matter. Are you suggesting that the PDA market doesn't exist because you only know 2 people who own one? How do you know it's not a common problem? Only rich people? Are you absolutely high? I'm sure only rich people have cell phones as well? And PDA's? Hell, I haven't seen homeless people with laptops, only rich people must have them. Jesus dude, sit back and think for a little bit before you post.

Re:who has 4 devices on them?

[Wyatt Earp]

"Very few people carry around a PDA, GPS, computer, and cell phone."

Every day I go to work or school I take a Canon digital camera, Garmin GPS, TiBook, iPod and Cell phone and I'm not rich.

Re:who has 4 devices on them?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, you are rich. very much so. everything is relative...

Re:who has 4 devices on them?

[Alan Partridge]

You REALLY should try travelling the world. No wonder US foreign policy is so fucked.

Re:who has 4 devices on them?

[nuggetman]

Not everyone actually has a NEED for a PDA. I don't. Most of my family doesn't. Most of my friends don't either. A simple paper date book works fine.

Re:who has 4 devices on them?

[Anonymous Coward]

managers carry PDAs. A few techs who will never rise out of tech support carry them because it makes them feel like managers. Alot of geeks bought PDAs just for the geek factory, but have never used them after the first month (week.)

why wire-free?

[Trepidity]

What the hell is the point of a wireless printer? What's wrong with connecting it with a wire? It's going to have to have a power cord anyway.

Really I don't see the use of Bluetooth. When I want to sync devices, I connect them with a wire. The only time wireless is useful is when I'm not close enough to connect a wire (which is what 802.11* is for).

Re:why wire-free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to your cave, tailban muthafucka. Nobody gives a crap how you like to sync your devices.

Re:why wire-free?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is the point of a wireless printer?

I live in a house, not an office. My computer is on one side of the room, next to my desk. The printer is on the other, tucked out of the way behind the couch. I like being able to get from my computer to my printer without having to string cables across the floor.

Of course, I did it the old-fashioned way with an 802.11b card for my printer's expansion slot, but that's just me. Today I would consider Bluetooth instead. (Consider and reject, probably, because I also like being able to get to the printer from my girlfriend's laptop from anywhere in the house, and doing that with a Bluetooth printer would involve setting up a print queue on my desktop computer and keeping it on all the time... bleah. But I'd consider it!)

Re:why wire-free?

[Cato]

The idea is to print from a PDA, tablet PC, laptop or whatever without having to buy *yet another* cable, or to tie into an overloaded PC that runs out of USB slots.

Re:why wire-free?

[akadruid]

plus one extra use:
at home, my desk with my PC, my laptop, my scanner, my pile of CDs and my glass of beer is out of capacity for a printer. I have no space to left or right, due to a inconvinent bed and door, but immediatly behind is a handy chest of drawers. Now, I can't and wouldn't want to run an enourmous USB cable around 3 walls of the room - it would have to be at least 8m long or go over the door, or under the carpet or something like that.
That's where my bluetooth adapter comes in.
It's cheap, simple and reliable.
Now my printer has lots of space and I can put my beer down again.

Re:why wire-free?

[jandrese]

The point is that Bluetooth is supposed to be the end of the connector conspiracy. Often times it's not as easy a "walk over to the printer, plug in and go" because the cable you need has some funky connector on one end and you don't have it. Worse, the cable costs like $50 down at Fry's or wherever. Bluetooth has a whole bunch of service discovery stuff built into it that should make everything just work automatically.

If only there were more bluetooth devices around to actually do this with.

Re:why wire-free?

[sadida_333]

>What the hell is the point of a wireless printer?

Take a moment and consider uses of the technology outside of *your* immediate needs. Wireless printing is most useful for portable, belt-worn printers.

Who says a printer has to have a power cable? You should check out the Bluetooth enabled portable printers made by companies such as Intermec, Extech, and Zebra. They run on rechargable batteries.

Cabled printers on the go are bad. Cables break and are costly to replace. Cables get in the way, like when climbing in to a truck to get the goods you are delivering. Cables open up one more connection to get filled with dirt or water or let in electric shock.

IrDA's no good either. It requires tedious pointing of the devices, gets confused in sun light, and requires users to move clothing out of the way in cold weather (think of a belt-worn printer under a coat).

The consumer market is slowly warming to Bluetooth, but that doesn't mean no one uses it.

why would I want to do that?

[Trepidity]

I don't really have a problem with having those cables; they're all behind the desk anyway. Even if Bluetooth was free I wouldn't want it. I see absolutely no advantage at all to making my printer wireless.

As for wireless headphones, there are currently no wireless headphones on the market with good sound quality at a reasonable price (Sennheiser makes pretty much the only well-regarded ones, and you'll pay a $75-$150 premium over the price of comparable wired headphones).

Re:why would I want to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really have a problem with having those cables; they're all behind the desk anyway. Even if Bluetooth was free I wouldn't want it. I see absolutely no advantage at all to making my printer wireless.

And that is perfectly your privilege, more power to you. But please don't knock people who would like to reduce or eliminate their own cable hell.

PS: Not everyone needs high quality wireless headphones. Bluetooth would be very useful for telephone-over-IP or voice recognition headsets without trailing wires all around the room.

Re:why would I want to do that?

[infiniti99]

Eliminating cables everywhere can be somewhat handy, but you're right, a wireless printer has very limited purpose. In my opinion, bluetooth is mostly useful for when you are traveling. I can keep a PDA in one pocket and a cell phone in the other, and use them together with bluetooth and zero hassle.

I've been through it all. I used to use a cable, but it was dorky to be carrying that also. Then I finally got to use infrared, but that totally sucked when in a moving vehicle, and was also a bit of a pain even when I was sitting down (can't pick up my PDA otherwise I lose my 'net. so much for turning my screen around to show someone something). To solve the infrared problem, I made a silly velcro contraption to bind both devices together to stay aimed at all times. As you can probably guess, Bluetooth has been a holy grail for me.

The next thing I want is a bluetooth mouse, so that it will work easily with my laptop. Currently I have to drag around either a wired mouse, or my logitech wireless RF mouse and base (but having to carry the stupid base sort of makes it pointless).

One other nice part about bluetooth is that one transceiver is all you need. You don't have to worry about running out of ports, which is especially nice on a PDA where you have a limited number of interfaces. For instance, my Zaurus can not only connect to my cellphone, but also to my laptop, and hopefully someday to a GPS device once they come down in price. No need to swap out cables or cards, or for my PDA to have 3 input jacks.

Re:why would I want to do that?

[rzbx]

Try the Amphony 2.4 ghz digital wireless headphones. Very good quality. Only disadvantage is range depends on various factors I'm not sure of. I've had it go up to 50 feet and sometimes it is only 15 feet. I think where you live makes the biggest difference. When I was living in an apartment while in college before I moved I got 50 feet through one wall and I was outside, transmitter inside. Here at home I can get as low as 15 feet to the bathroom. It is great on batteries btw.

Re:why would I want to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

But do they interfere with Bluetooth? Well, you said question everything.

Re:why would I want to do that?

[rzbx]

I wouldn't know. I have no Bluetooth devices. I just bought a Linksys Wireless Access Point Router (802.11b 2.4ghz) and also a laptop (which I should be getting tomorrow I believe). So sometime this week I'll know if the headphones interfere with 802.11b. If you want to know, E-mail me. I'll respond as soon as I find out.

Don't Blame Bluetooth...

[General_Tso]

...Because Microsoft has crappy Bluetooth support. It is excellent for its INTENDED purposes on OS X--recent iSync issues not withstanding. As for the technology being dead, little companies like Sony keep pushing it.

--General Tso

Personal area network?

[briancnorton]

Seriously, what do you need to network on your person? If the only connection is between a PC and a cell phone then I will do just fine with a cradle. I just dont understnad what the intention was, and it appears that I am not alone.

All the limitations or wires?

[krogoth]

Send me a digital camera and I'll show you what's behind my desk.

I believe it.

[1nv4d3r]

I had an Aunt with blue tooth for years, and now she's dead!

What does bluetooth have to offer over 802.11?

[digital photo]

Seriously, what does bluetooth have to offer which 802.11 doesn't offer already?

I'm typing this via my laptop connected to my home network via 802.11b which in turn is hooked up to the DSL to the internet. The wireless card is powered by my laptop. I get 11mpbs on this thing and have an effective range, with degraded performance, of up to 100' from my gateway.

In contrast, with Bluetooth, I get what? 768kbps connection in what is termed a PAN(Personal Area Network). The range is limited to distances comparable to patch cable. Basically, it buys you the ability to remove the wires between your headset, your phone, and your PDA/Printer/laptop/etc.

But if any of it wanders too far away, then you will lose your connection. Ie, don't try to print to the printer from another room.

The argument seems to be that the IP stack of 802.11b is overkill. That 802.11b consumes more power. Sure. I believe it. I've seen USB dongles for 802.11b which are about the same size as the USB dongles for Bluetooth.

The relationship between bluetooth and 802.11(b/g/x/a/etc) is like the relationship between gift certificates and debit cards.

They both are tied to another system, but the gift certificate can only be used with a select few stores and have a limited life whereas the debit cards can be used just about anywhere and are honoured for a longer period of time.

Manufacturers would be wise to embed 802.11 into their systems. Why wouldn't you want greater range and communication speeds? Why limit your product to a short lifespan and guaranteed obsolence compared to your competitors?

Short sightedness.

Sure, I can pick up a bluetooth enabled phone, pda, and headset and do the local wireless thing. But damned if I want to surf the net at a local cafe, airport, or bookstore. What do they use? 802.11.

If I had a 802.11 enabled phone, pda, and headset, I could use that same hardware anywhere there is a wifi hotspot.

I understand there are different design intentions and goals. But the question which should be asked is not whether the device lives up to those goals, but whether the very goals themselves are sound.

If Bluetooth's only real advantage is simplicity and lower power consumption, then it is sunk because 802.11's implementation can be embedded in a one-chip design and the power consumption is dropping. Another 6 months and the edge which bluetooth has will be lost.

Then what will be the point of Bluetooth except as another standard to which to choose from? A standard with shorter range and lower throughput.

802.11 is stable and widely adopted. Bluetooth has yet to see wide acceptance with stable support from desktop/laptop systems.

In my mind, the very "benefits" of bluetooth makes it weak.

Lower power consumption also means weaker broadcast. If you happened to be in a electricalloy noisey environment, how well would bluetooth hold up?

Lower bandwidth means longer wait times while I transfer information from one device to another. This in turn negates the power savings of the device.

...

But I then again, I'm ranting. Bluetooth may become more widely adopted and people will use it with ease between pda and their accesories.

But then again, I'm writing this from a 802.11b connected network. It took 20 minutes to setup on my first try and has not had a single problem with it since setup. No crashed OS's and no stalled connections. This between three brands of 802.11b products in the same network between three different operating systems.

Re:What does bluetooth have to offer over 802.11?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what does bluetooth have to offer which 802.11 doesn't offer already?

Try using 802.11 to connect your laptop to the Internet from a moving train.. This is stupidly easy with Bluetooth and a GPRS phone. Try using it to exchange electronic business cards with someone at a conference. This is also simple with Bluetooth.

Of course, you can do these things with Irda, but having to have the devices lined up without any visual obstructions for god-knows how long is not fun.

Bluetooth has yet to see wide acceptance with stable support from desktop/laptop systems.

Perhaps on your planet. Works just fine on my iBook though, and a multitude of manufacturers make Bluetooth USB dongles. If you have a problem with stability, may I suggest you investigate non-Windows options?

Re:What does bluetooth have to offer over 802.11?

[digital photo]

Hmm.. too bad your post's score isn't high enough. It's actually kinda informative.

I wouldn't try to connect to the net via 802.11b from a train. Not unless they have wifi access on the train, as they do on some planes these days.

I see the ease of use and cool factor with Bluetooth. Connect things which go together without wires. That is fine. In your example, Bluetooth does a geat job of replacing a data cable between your phone and your laptop. For my purposes, my phone has no bluetooth support. I use a cable to connect my laptop to my phone for network access.

But that isn't an 802.11b vs Bluetooth issue.

From a laptop point of view, I use an ibook and have seen no instablities whatsoever. However, getting Bluetooth to interoperate between differing OS's and systems(Mac->Windows->Linux) IS a problem. Granted, this isn't Bluetooth's fault, but that of the companies writing drivers for the technology.

I use a PDA to transfer vcards via irda. For the most part, there are many more irda users than there are bluetooth users out there. I'm sure this will change. Faster, I hope, as irda is ungodly slow.

You sound like you are a happy user of Bluetooth. Given time(read: when phones supported by my celphone carrier offer Bluetooth capabilities) I'll be a happy user of it as well.

For the time being, it doesn't offer me anything which 802.11b doesn't already offer me or a $10 cable doesn't already provide for.

My planet is made up of various OS's. I tend to like them all to play nice together.

Wi-FI cellphone?

[pixelfreak]

The last thing I want to worry about is setting up DCHP on my T68i so I can synchronize it with my TiBook.

Bluetooth is a personal network that lets you do away with cords and all the hassles they bring. Nothing more and nothing less.

And that's the way I like it.

Yeah, buddy...

[superdan2k]

Just because you can't afford bluetooth or because Bluetooth isn't inside every item on the planet doesn't mean it's failed. Shit, by that argument, Windoze is a failure because it hasn't taken that last 10% of the market away from *Nix and Mac.

Bluetooth failed? Tell that to my Palm Tungsten T, Sony Ericcson T68i and the USB dongle sticking out the side of my iBook.

Million Monkeys

[jafiwam]

Sooner or later, if you predict everything, you get one right.

Cripes, don't buy one if you don't like it. What' the point of making an article (or posting) about it? Tech writers annoy me.

I do not own enough devices to care if they all connect, and the ones I do own are too old for BlueTooth.

However, I do use a Microsoft BlueTooth keyboard and mouse setup at work in a training room. It's the presenter's controls, which allows them to move around the room and sit next to a student while controlling the computer connected to the overhead projector screen. (The computer itself sits in the back of the room.) It works great for classes, allowing flexibility in training style, freedom of movement and easy passing of the controls to a student for examples.

I really do not care how long the range since it covers the room nicely.

The mouse is optical, takes two AA batteries. The keyboard has all the bells and whistles on it, and has the type of key action that allows fast and accurate typing.

It was only $85, cheaper than a regular corded optical mouse and a regular (decent) corded keyboard. It could be that MS is taking a loss on it, but even at $100 it would be a decent price.

The base is USB, and could be used on a laptop as easily as a desktop. I could see the setup being really good for a big office, laptop, and big extra screen.

I did disable the mouse once demonstrating I could use my pant leg as the mousepad. (Static probably messed it up.) The fix was simple, just re-initialize it. Of course, it only comes with Windows XP drivers so other OSs are out of luck, but that doesnt mean that a different manufacturer couldn't make one that does not rely on drivers.

As far as I am concerned, Bluetooth has been a great success.

I could easily imagine that it could be used for things like universal remote controls, printers, gaming inputs, keyless vehicle entry and loads of other things.

Though, I would never use it on audio headphones. I tend to like more power on them anyway, and a "low-power-consumption" wireless solution makes no sense for something that needs decent bass.

more goddam batteries

[lseltzer]

The real problem with Bluetooth for keyboards and mice is that you have to have batteries for these devices, when the conventional ones work off the 5v line from the PC. Pain in the ass! Just what I need while I'm working, to have to find a battery for my keyboard.

Re:more goddam batteries

[evilviper]

I've seen keyboard/mouse devices that are wireless, but can also operate while plugged into the USB port. That means, when your batteries are dying, you connect it, and it recharges while you are using it.

I don't know if it was a bluetooth device, nor if it used NiCad batteries (which would be a bad thing for many reason), but it's certainly a step-up from a permanently wired keyboard.

Can you say laptop?

[Eevee]

It's kind of annoying to have to drag my laptop over to the printer, hook up a cable, print out a page, unhook the printer, head back to my chair, shoo the dog off of it, fight with the wife to get the TV back on the football game...only to discover I need to print another page. Better wait for the commercial.

Re:Can you say laptop?

[raju1kabir]

Printer sharing might be useful for you.

from the descriptions, Bluetooth won't help

[Trepidity]

I have't used it myself, but people here seem to be describing Bluetooth as being designed for a very short range, on the order of 1-3m (people have mentioned that the advertised "10m" range doesn't actually work). So you'd have to get up and take your laptop over to the printer anyway.

Which is basically my point -- if this requires you to go over to the device anyway, saving you the 1 second it takes to connect a wire is pretty useless. The only time I see wireless as useful is if it has a greater range, so I could say print from any room in my house. But Bluetooth can't do that (802.11b can).

Re:from the descriptions, Bluetooth won't help

[Graymalkin]

Depending on the situation BT capable printers can indeed make sense. If you want to print from anywhere in your house a 802.11 print server is probably going to be your best bet. Say you had a printer that was JUST out of USB range and only a single printer you wanted to print from, an 802.11 print server is overkill. For a little more than it would cost you for the extra long USB cables and USB hub you could pick up a BT printer adapter. You can keep a clean looking workspace and yet be productive.

Re:from the descriptions, Bluetooth won't help

[uspsguy]

I guess you've never had the pleasure of blowing a port from plugging and unplugging hot. It is a pain. Turn off the printer, you say. Now the second to connect a cable becomes 5 minutes while the printer self tests and warms up. BT makes perfectly good sense in that senario

PDAs

[Trepidity]

There were approximately 10m PDAs sold worldwide in 2002. Of those, around 4m were sold in the United States. That's somewhere around 1.5% of the population. Even assuming that many people already had PDAs, that's maybe 3% of the population. In short -- only rich businessmen (and technophiles who always buy the latest gadgets). And that's PDAs sold. PDAs used is probably much lower -- while I only two 2 people who use PDAs, I do know around 10 people who have PDAs (most got them as presents and haven't used them since the initial tinkering around). Hell, I myself have a PDA (Dell Axim X5) I got for free, but I haven't really used it, because I just don't see what it's good for.

Where am I basing my personal observations? A computer science department at a university, of all places. One prof. and one departmental secretary has a PDA, the rest don't. And that's much higher than in the non-CS departments, where absolutely nobody has one. It's the same many other places. My dad's company gave away free PDAs to their engineers, but only around maybe 10% of them actually use their PDAs.

Cell phones have a much greater market penetration.

Re:PDAs

[Wyatt Earp]

"There were approximately 10m PDAs sold worldwide in 2002. Of those, around 4m were sold in the United States."

Close, but not right on

"The PDA industry suffered through a difficult year as worldwide shipments totaled 12.1 million units in 2002, a 9.1 percent decline from 2001 results, according to preliminary results from Dataquest Inc., a unit of Gartner. The industry has been impacted by the slow adoption of PDAs by enterprises, says the research firm."

http://www.mobilevillage.com/news/2003.01.31/pda sa les2002.htm

5.9 million were in the US.

Since around 2/3rds of the households in the US don't have computers and only 1/2 have Internet, it's better to compare PDA use to that number.

http://www.techpolicybank.org/2002commercereport .h tml

Re:PDAs

[stoops]

Since around 2/3rds of the households in the US don't have computers and only 1/2 have Internet, it's better to compare PDA use to that number.

what do the 1/6 of people that have internet and no computer use the internet for?

Re:PDAs

[FatherOfONe]

Profs are usually the last people on earth to try new technology. Unless they invented it :-) They also don't have to worry about a ton of meetings with different people. Students also don't meet with a ton of different people, and until a PDA can smoke a gameboy, you won't see much growth with students. :-) Not to mention that most students are poor.

Your dads company of engineers is similar to Profs, most engineers (that I know, and I know a lot) think that they are Gods gift to the techno world and to ask for help with anything would be a sign of weakness. They also don't meet with a lot of people.

Go ask your dad how many of his sales and marketing people have them. If none do, then I would take that as an opportunity to show them some of the new cell-phone and or PDA's.

The basic premis of a PDA was to replace a day-timer. It does that well for most people. Being able to read your email off line is also great. It is not a replacement for a laptop or desktop. Since a Prof and an Engineer are just a few feet away from a computer at most times, it makes a PDA kinda worthless to them, but not to everyone.

Re:PDAs

[yelvington]

In short -- only rich businessmen (and technophiles who always buy the latest gadgets).

Translation: People with jobs.

Where am I basing my personal observations? A computer science department at a university, of all places.

Translation: Never-never land.

At the media company where I work for a living, PDAs are ubiquitous among management, among people who participate in meetings, and among outside salespeople. The most popular PDAs are integrated with cellphones -- the inexpensive Kyocera, the Samsung i300, Treo Handspring, RIM Blackberry.

This isn't simply technophilic self-indulgence. This is a matter of needing complete, current contact lists integrated with the phone. It's a matter of needing to be at irregularly scheduled meetings on time. It's cheaper to buy the phones than to miss business opportunities.

I suppose we could all carry Daytimers and Rolodexes. They don't fit in pockets and have a bad habit of not being around when they're needed. And they don't beep five minutes before it's time to be someplace.

Re:PDAs

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a DEC VT plugged into a Hayes modem, and are dialing into their favorite internet-connected timesharing system.

OK, probably not.

Re:PDAs

[PainKilleR-CE]

This isn't simply technophilic self-indulgence. This is a matter of needing complete, current contact lists integrated with the phone. It's a matter of needing to be at irregularly scheduled meetings on time. It's cheaper to buy the phones than to miss business opportunities.

I've been thinking about hunting down the ever-elusive USB cable for my cell phone (elusive because it didn't come with the phone and the phone isn't really produced any more, though I've only had it about 3-4 months) and trying to synch it to Outlook here at work. I wonder how long it would go before it gives up?

Re:PDAs

[japhmi]

In short -- only rich businessmen (and technophiles who always buy the latest gadgets).

In short, people who find them usefull.

I've had my PDA for about 1.5years now, and I love it - it helps me keep track of work stuff, appointments for my internship, homework, etc. It's an older model (and was when I got it) but it does what I need it to do and is more likely to be on my than my old dayrunner. (after all, it's smaller and fits in a cargo pocket)

My friend who works in a doctor's office says that PDAs are virtually ubiquitous there. People who have a need for them. That's called having a market. When there is a market, you sell to that market, not to people who have no need of them, or don't want them. If I was selling something, I would love to have 1.5-3% of the population wanting it!

Re:PDAs

[hitmark]

that comment on the gamebuy made me think about hte new nokia phone/gameunit comeing out not to far into the future, its a cellphone, a radio, a mp3 player and a gameing unit (far more so that any present nokia phone, we are talking games on flash cards that you can exchange in the same way as the gameboys). this unit uses bluetooth for close range gameing and can probably use it for file transefer (mp3s and so on) or similar to...

Re:PDAs

[TheCrazyFinn]

WebTV

Dead?

[SomeOtherGuy]

Dead like mp3 died when ogg came out? Bluetooth won't die now that the consumers have picked it up. It may have died for networking....much the same way the Cesna died for transcontinental flights...Read (that is not what it was meant for)...I use a bluetooth GPS setup in a system we have rolled out to over 500 people and counting. There will be another 1500 by years end with those little socket cards and Emtac radio's. Bluetooth was meant to gid rid of wires on devices close to your body...Not to replace 802.11x so you could sit on the back 40 and surf pr0n with the access point in your basement.

Feta cheese is "dead" compared to cheddar

[vulgarDPS]

This article is so rediculous. Bluetooth is designed for small devices that would usually be used over usb or rf.

But lets just assume that the entire reason for bluetooth was for wireless LAN type usage. Then it is still not dead unless we say that 802.11b was dead a few years back when there weren't that many wireless access points to buy, or back when microsoft hadn't even added 802.11b support yet.

Bluetooth networking is done over the PAN specification from the bluetooth working group, it basically just takes traffic in layer two and opens an L2CAP tunnel to encapsilate the traffic in BNEP (Bluetooth Network Encapsilation Protocol) then sends to a NAP or GN device (covered in the PAN spec). The NAP or GN then unencapsilates the BNEP traffic and, if its a NAP, sends it out in the form of regular ethernet traffic. There are only a few NAP and GN devices on the market, and microsoft hasn't even implemented the PAN spec yet. So how can it be dead before it's even alive.

I don't say that the sperm that ends up at the bottom of my shower is dead babies.

After PAN is widely used it will be a decent wireless solution for homes. It has very limited range but pretty good bandwidth, more than 802.11b by far.

my point

[Trepidity]

The vast majority of people only own one, or at most two, of these devices. Syncing is not an issue for most people -- they use their cell phone to make calls.

So basically, the devices don't need Bluetooth support. Adding it would make them more expensive and only benefit a small fraction of the users, so isn't justified (which is why it's not being done).

Re:my point

[Moofie]

Same argument applied to USB.

And, fortunately, Apple is here to make a potentially useful technology ubiquitous again.

Just because you don't think the technology is useful doesn't make it not useful for other people. Fortunately, when a market works properly, your needs, and the needs of others, are addressed by different products.

People who only want to make calls will buy a phone that only makes calls. People who want to do other stuff will buy phones that can do other stuff.

What's the point of deriding a system that other people find useful?

So, again, what's your point?

Re:my point

[Moofie]

I see by reading your other post that a) you don't like PDAs and b) you don't think much of people who do.

Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

Unless you have a cogent argument, I'm done feeding your troll.

Although, if you can't find somebody in your CS department who wants to use your Dell, I know a student who would really like one. I'll give you the contact info so you can put your money where your mouth is.

Re:my point

[Parsec]

Personally, I don't want to carry a wire (or two) around just to connect my laptop or Palm to my phone for data service.

But I guess I'm just weird that way.

Re:my point

[steeviant]

As far as I can tell, your point is that bluetooth is useless because you don't have any use for it. If I can sync my calendar and address book to my phone while it's in my pocket when I'm sitting at my desk, it's saved me a minute or so connecting up and disconnecting cables from it. The arguments you use against bluetooth could equally be applied against keyboards and pointing devices on laptops. "The vast majority of people use laptops sitting at a desk. Keyboards and mice are not an issue for most people -- they use their laptop at a desk. So basically, these people don't need built in input devices. Adding them only makes laptops more expensive and only benefits a small fraction of the users, so isn't justified." Seems to make a little less sense when you look at it this way doesn't it, I could easily extend this argument to a thousand other examples in everyday life... back seats in cars for instance.

Re:my point

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell man, you must have got a buttload of karma from that argument. You were the only modded up.

Re:my point

[hitmark]

bluetooth is desinged from the getgo to be cheap, the problem is that its only high end phones and pda's (and those are costly toys from the start) that have them at the moment. think of it this way, you have a phone with a cam and want to transfer the pics you have taken to some other devices. without bluetooth you would need a diffrent wire depedning on what device you want to send it to (ok you have irda but that have the problem of lining up those sensor ports) on what device you want to send to, and some devices may not have acompatible vire at all! now with bluetooth you can connect to all bluetooth enabled devices within range, and on a mobile device range isnt a problem (just move your ass!), and there is no need to have a table to a steady hand to line up those irda ports either.

Re:my point

[hesiod]

> People who only want to make calls will buy a phone that only makes calls.

Unfortunately, there is no such phone available these days. With Technology the way it is, Motorola could make a kick ass $20 (retail) cell phone with great reception, is tiny, and looks cool. They don't because they think (and, unfortunately, they're mostly correct) no one wants a phone that just works as a phone. It has to have at least one game preinstalled, if not 5-6, a calculator, instant messenger, Internet access... I don't need that crap, but if I want a phone I have to buy a $150 one because that's all there is.

Re:my point

[PainKilleR-CE]

Unfortunately, there is no such phone available these days. With Technology the way it is, Motorola could make a kick ass $20 (retail) cell phone with great reception, is tiny, and looks cool. They don't because they think (and, unfortunately, they're mostly correct) no one wants a phone that just works as a phone. It has to have at least one game preinstalled, if not 5-6, a calculator, instant messenger, Internet access... I don't need that crap, but if I want a phone I have to buy a $150 one because that's all there is.

Personally, the only reason I have a cell phone is because the plan I got (which is unbelievably good) is significantly cheaper than it would've been to have a phone installed in my apartment, especially with the amount of long distance calls I sometimes have to make. I only use it for three things: making calls, keeping time (I haven't worn a watch in a couple of years, so it's essentially performing a function I didn't really want, but use anyway), and as an alarm to wake me up in the morning (essentially a function of the other two, but since I can't program my alarm clock to go off Monday-Friday at 5:40AM without turning it on every nite...).

Besides that, it has 4 games, a calendar that synchs with Outlook, voice recognition, text messaging (which costs a certain amount per message to use or an extra $5/month, so I never send them) and probably a crapload of other stuff I'm forgetting (I only use about 60% of the top-level menu items, and I could limit that to 20% because 1 of the 3 items I use (out of 5) is a customizable menu which is linked to the alarm clock so I can tell it not to go off on a particular day if I dont have to work), and an even smaller percentage of the lower-level menus.

Why do I bother having a phone with so much crap I don't use? It was free with the plan and I really had no other choices. The added bonus is that it's an older model phone with almost no accessories available for it, though it came with the earphone/mic for hands-free use.

The only basic phones really made any more are the disposable ones. As the price of the high-end phones gets lower and lower (woohoo, more features for the same price! Oh, wait, I didn't need/want those features), the low-end phones are simply phased out because no one wants to be in the market of selling $5 phones that do what everyone really wants to do: make and receive phone calls.

Re:my point

[Moofie]

The thing is, because we're talking about a device with a radio and a microprocessor, it's no less expensive to manufacture a phone that just makes calls, than to mfr one that makes calls and plays games and has funny little musical tones &c. Adding features doesn't increas mfr cost, but it does increase profit margin for the phone company.

The phone makers can apparently saturate their manufacturing capacity building phones that they can sell for $150 (although I don't know where you shop...I can't drive to work without seeing a dozen ads for free phones) and they have no profit incentive to sell cheaper ones.

I don't have a phone because I won't pay the exorbitant monthly fees. If you get a plan with a small number of included minutes, you get an ass-raping on the additional minutes. Same goes for pre-paid phones. If I could get a plan that had a fair price for monthly service, and a reasonable price for add'l minutes, I'd probably jump.

But my price point is not being serviced, because other higher-margin price points can saturate the available resources. Sucks to be me. And you.

IMMINENT DEATH OF BLUE TOOTH PREDICTED!

[Valar]

It is to be buried next to the internet, the apple computer and the light bulb.

SMS doesn't work in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

SMS doesn't work in the US because, in typical free market blinders, the carriers don't have any short-term interest in making their systems interoperable. That would be easily fixed if the US government mandated interoperability and let the market figure out how to provide it efficiently, but, as US politicians keep chanting mindlessly, "government regulations are always bad".

Re:SMS doesn't work in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

It was no different here originally. 7-8 years ago we had the same interoperability issues, but they got fixed after a while.

It was only after that point SMS really took off. I had an SMS capable phone for two years prior to this fix, and in that entire time the only messages I got were my e-mails through an SMS gateway.

No need to worry.

[Lunastorm]

With the support that Bluetooth receives from Microsoft, I'm positive that its existence will continue.

no IP addresses

[73939133]

There is another big disadvantage of 802.11: just about any use of it is based on networking protocols, foremost TCP/IP. Networks are a pain to configure, and 802.1x, which you need for 802.11 security, is making things even worse.

Bluetooth, on the other hand, creates virtual serial connections by pairing devices. Pairing is a process normal human beings understand: put the devices next to one another, push a button, maybe enter the same code into both, and it works. Alternatively, Bluetooth devices can also discover each other and talk in an untrusted mode. And all those things work in any combination, something that would make your head spin if you tried it with network-based abstractions.

Maybe ZeroConf will eventually help make 802.11 usable, but so far, there is just no comparison: 802.11 requires the skills of a network administrator, while Bluetooth is usable for regular people.

Re:no IP addresses

[ocelotbob]

Such things are quite possible through 802.11* interfaces. Remember, 802.11, like ethernet, is a lower-level protocol than TCP/IP; while both technologies are usually paired up with TCP/IP, they could be used with protocols such as Appletalk or DECnet as well. Thus, one could very easily implement a protocol that does everything you just described, yet still have essentially invisible expandability up to talking with a "real" network. The only real issue would be implementing the kernel-side interface for allowing networked items to function as i/o devices, but similar work had to be done with bluetooth. I'd imagine that much of the work could carry over fairly easily.

This isn't to say that bluetooth isn't interesting technology, it's just that maybe it could easily die without all that much trouble, if one were to take the truly interesting bits and place them atop 802.11.

Re:no IP addresses

[wfmcwalter]

Remember, 802.11, like ethernet, is a lower-level protocol than TCP/IP

Ah, it's nice to see someone was paying attention when the network-stack diagrams were being handed out.

... protocols such as Appletalk or DECnet as well. Thus, one could very easily implement a protocol that does everything you just described, yet still have essentially invisible expandability up to talking with a "real" network.

Quite. Appletalk, qnet, and SMB/CIFS have been doing fairly-lightweight network/device dynamic discovery for years on ethernet and other carriers (and really, as a transport bluetooth is way more complicated than 10-base-T ethernet).

Re:no IP addresses

[73939133]

Thus, one could very easily implement a protocol that does everything you just described,

Yes, "one could". But my point is: "one hasn't". There are no standards, no device support, nothing, for using 802.11 that way.

Conversely, Bluetooth could also be used like 802.11, but it isn't. Its TCP/IP encapsulation is based on PPP, and that is quite deliberate: it fits Bluetooth's usage profile much better.

it's just that maybe it could easily die without all that much trouble, if one were to take the truly interesting bits and place them atop 802.11.

Yes, and you'd end up with something that's more expensive, more power hungry, and with not hardware support.

Re:no IP addresses

[73939133]

Ah, it's nice to see someone was paying attention when the network-stack diagrams were being handed out.

Too bad you haven't been paying attention to the very first slide shown in engineering class, though: "fast, cheap, and full-featured--pick any two" (one might add "low power" and "easy-to-use" to that list). Or maybe computer scientists just don't understand the meaning of "engineering tradeoffs"?

Bluetooth is a good engineering tradeoff for its intended purpose; 802.11a/b/g is not a good engineering tradeoff for the same purpose.

Re:no IP addresses

[ocelotbob]

Yes, and you'd end up with something that's more expensive, more power hungry, and with not hardware support.

I disagree here. Yes, it would be more power hungry if you were to transmit at full power, but who says you need to have your headset transmit with every available milliwatt? Scale back the watts and you scale back the power consumption. Cost is also a non-issue. Ramp up production of single-chip 802.11 solutions and you can more than likely provide a solution thats cost effective with 802.11, plus provides greater bandwidth. Hardware support is very much a chicken and egg problem. There's got to be someone willing to provide the initial product to see if support is worthwhile. If it is, then it'll flourish. If not, it'll die on the vine. As 802.11 can provide higher bandwidth than bluetooth, IMO, its a better solution for a PAN as it can allow for better intergration of personal items such as PDAs, phones and digital cameras.

Re:no IP addresses

[73939133]

And by the time you are done defining a spec for a slower, cheaper, easier to configure, less power hungry version of 802.11 and new protocols over 802.11, a few years have passed, and you essentially have Bluetooth, only that it's incompatible and nothing supports it.

Bluetooth support is pretty much everywhere, in both hardware and software. It works. Why in the world would you want to start from scratch? A low-power 802.11 standard would be redundant.

Also, it appears that Bluetooth actually gets a larger range at the same power as 802.11, probably because it's slower.

However, there are faster versions of Bluetooth coming that use the same protocols and remain software and hardware compatible, so you will get a choice of speed and power tradeoffs.

Re:no IP addresses

[ocelotbob]

I disagree. All that's really needed is to either use TCP/IP and add a zeroconf type protocol, or as was mentioned before, use an auto-discovery protocol like IPX. As far as hardware support goes, there are already low power consumption chipsets for 802.11b, and creating an even lower powered chipset would more than likely be merely a matter of lowering the signal strength to just that that is needed.

Such a move makes sense in my opinion, because why should you need two chipsets and two standards to communicate through wireless? We don't have two cabling standards, so two wireless standards just seems silly in my opinion.

Re:no IP addresses

[73939133]

All that's really needed is to either use TCP/IP and add a zeroconf type protocol

Is that all? Only a TCP/IP protocol stack, ZeroConf daemons?

Bluetooth gives you a serial line, something that you can plug into a PIC that costs a few cents, with no protocols, no TCP/IP, nothing.

Such a move makes sense in my opinion, because why should you need two chipsets and two standards to communicate through wireless?

Why indeed. We have Bluetooth for wireless device interconnect. What point would 802.11 serve?

We don't have two cabling standards, so two wireless standards just seems silly in my opinion.

No, we don't have two cabling standards, we zillions. Even Ethernet runs over many different, incompatible cabling standards. For disks, we have USB1, USB2, IEEE1394, Serial ATA, FiberChannel, a dozen different incompatible SCSI standards, and more.

Even if 802.11 were to make a redundant push into the Bluetooth space, wireless would still be much more standardized than cables.

Power Usage

[Ancil]

Everyone makes the point that 802.11 is too power-hungry for PAN applications.

But if you only want to link to something 1 or 2 meters away, 802.11 could transmit at power levels comparable to BlueTooth.

The problem is price!

[fname]

Bluetooth was supposed to rock because it was going to be cheap. But that hasn't happened, WiFi is cheaper. Bluetooth was supposed to add $5 to the cost of the device. If that held true, they would have sold a lot of Bluetooth DigiCams, Printers, mice, keyboards, etc. Sure, it's not ideal for any of these things, but I'd pay $10 to have Bluetooth on my Digicam.

But it's expensive, so it hasn't worked out. Cost is the only real barrier to adoption-- many will gladly pay $10/ device to eliminate wires, but $50 is not a good value proposition. Lower the price, and we'll use it.

Re:The problem is price!

[tyroneking]

Totally agree - in the UK the true killer-app for BT, the BT headset, costs £60 for generic models and £100 for proprietary brands.

Mobile phones cost less than that here!

Automotive applications for Bluetooth

[xnok]

Bluetooth is finding a niche in many applications in the autotive industry. Imagine ... You get into the car, the Bluetooth phone is recognized by the sound system, and you use the car's speakers for your handsfree operation.

Similar scenario, your car recognizes the phone you carry and automacically adjusts the seats, mirrors, temperature, favorite radio stations, etc., ... all without doing anything except getting in.

As many have pointed out, Bob Frankston's understanding of the purpose of Bluetooth's is flawed, and so is his analysis.

Re:Automotive applications for Bluetooth

[phillymjs]

I like using the BT headset with my phone, so my idea for auto sound system integration was not for handsfree purposes, but to just mute or lower the sound system volume automatically when a call is initiated/answered. If you're going to build Bluetooth into a car stereo, though, you might as well include both of the options.

I must say I do like the automatic detection of the driver and setting of the personal preferences, though. You've clearly been thinking about the application of BT more than I have.

~Philly

Bluetooth simple?

[AltaMannen]

Ok, if bluetooth is simpler than a cable, then why does the sync with a pocket pc require setting up a virtual bluetooth com port and make the syncing program search for it (when there is a completely different sync protocol), why do I have to figure out the protocol, set it up and enable it for the device? And I can't seem to find bluetooth built in to any laptop anyway (not that I've been looking in the last 7 months) so I need to bring a USB cable with a dongle which means I might as well just connect the mobile phone directly to the PC with a perfectly simple cable. I can understand the bonding procedure for security but if all devices could use one and the same cable that would be even less hassle than the USB bluetooth reciever.

Re:Bluetooth simple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, if bluetooth is simpler than a cable, then why does the sync with a pocket pc require setting up a virtual bluetooth com port and make the syncing program search for it (when there is a completely different sync protocol), why do I have to figure out the protocol, set it up and enable it for the device?

Well, because Windows blows dogs for quarters when it comes to peripherals. Try Bluetooth on a Mac sometime, and see how it was intended to function.

Re:Bluetooth simple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, if bluetooth is simpler than a cable, then why does the sync with a pocket pc require setting up a virtual bluetooth com port and make the syncing program search for it (when there is a completely different sync protocol), why do I have to figure out the protocol, set it up and enable it for the device?

I think you answered your own question.

Solution in search of a problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth is a great solution to a 'problem' I'm not willing to spend money to solve. Yeah, my printer cable is kinda tangled. Yeah, I have to have a little wire going from my headphones to my Walkman. But so what? These are minor annoyances that the inherent flakiness of a wireless solution would only make worse. Besides, other than a few Silicon Valley technocrats, who carries around enough electronic devices that they need a 'personal area network?' It's a waste of time, is all.

IWired?

[ackthpt]

What's wrong with wires? They tangle. They wad up in my pocket and make it harder to rig my earphone. I have to have a different one to perform each task (attach phone to PDA, attach PDA to GPS, attach GPS to computer, make up all your own permutations). They are expensive and fragile.

And remarkably we still need wires in the office for 802.11 stuff anyway, the computer still needs power, the WiFi base needs a network cable plugged into it. The only thing it simplfies is moving PC's around, so long as there's still a safe plug (we have outlets with protection and backup power for PC's.) Granted this only pertains to 802.11 PC stuff, not BlueTooth.

Do they have to be expensive? Of course they don't. It's a wire, with a plastic doohickey on each end. How many mobile electronics vendors are making universal cable systems? With the conspicuous exception of audio headphones, zero.

There was some really cool standard ages ago for hooking home appliances up to a household network. A friend bought a few of these things and was impressed, however about 0.001% of the public knew about it and that their washing machine or microwave oven even had such a capability. I like the concept of BlueTooth for around the home and plan to get it going on my PC as soon as I have a few bucks to rub together. Screw what 'experts' say.

I hate wires. It's a problem I percieve, and a solution I'm willing to pay for. Therefore, from my perspective, it is good technology.

Indeed. Particularly when used as intended. I have satellite radio in my PU and I can pretty much tell you where WiFi is leaking into the street. 802.11 is kind of a nuisance where it's deployed badly.

Re:IWired?

[Moofie]

I'm not totally sure what your contentions are.

The only problem 802.11 is trying to solve is being able to move computers around. The only computers it makes real sense to move around are ones that have batteries in them.

Are you talking about X-11? Lots of people use it. By "lots", I mean "enough to make the market viable".

Which brings us around to a silly point: Who cares if only 100,000 people use Bluetooth? If it's profitable to service that market, the market will be serviced. The technology isn't "dead" because people use it and like it.

I'm particularly heartened by Apple's adoption. They accelerated the deployment of USB, wireless LAN, and I'm sure the same will work with BT.

Re:IWired?

[steeviant]

Damn I wish I could get a microwave that supported X11, then I could sit in the lounge and watch the status of my food cooking with a nice remote app running on the microwave. Or did you mean an X11 server? Coz it'd be super-nifty to be able to display ethereal on my microwave display so I could watch how the leakage in ISM band affects throughput on my 802.11 network.

Re:IWired?

[Moofie]

When I turn my brain back on, I'll post saying that I meant X-10, not X-11. You'll have to just muddle on on your own until I get around to correcting my oversight.

: )

Re:IWired?

[ReaperOfSouls]

The only problem 802.11 is trying to solve is being able to move computers around. The only computers it makes real sense to move around are ones that have batteries in them.

Actually thats not the only problem it solves. Imagine a prebuilt house, or an apartment where you don't want or cannot run ethernet to every place you would want ethernet. You can get pci 802.11 cards and slap them in computers where ethernet is not really a good choice. Those computers don't necissarily need to move anywhere...:-)

Re:IWired?

[steeviant]

Damnit, you could've replied sooner, I've been fussing for hours trying to get my 600W Mitsubishi Cube to compile xmms. On a lighter note, I have discovered an exciting way to get rid of CD's I don't need anymore.

Where, oh where, is my T608?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only decently priced cell data network may finally someday get a Bluetooth phone. Me wantee.

T608

Bluetooth is not wi-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

What a BS... Bluetooth is not wi-fi. As he says in the article it's a wire replacement. It's only better than IR because does not need line of sight. And that's it. It's not a network protocol, not a long-distance communications hardware it's just a wire replacement.

What's the problem with people that can not discuss wi-fi, Bluetooth, 2.5 and 3G without getting tangled?

Bluetooth top speed: 0.8mbps

[Anonymous Coward]

Just seriously. Know something about the technology.

Although I am a fan of Bluetooth for what it is good at, what it isn't good for is wireless internet access or printing. It is too slow for those.

nope

[Matthew Weigel]

Sorry, Bluetooth isn't dead, and it's not surviving as a way to connect a headset to a cell phone (only).

What the article seems to completely fail to realize is that 802.11b (and every 802.11* standard with which I'm familiar) is completely inappropriate for the low-power uses to which Bluetooth is put. Do I want my cell phone's battery to be drained by an 11MBps bandwidth, 50m range radio in addition to its cellular radio? I don't think so; secondary radios should have as little impact on the primary function as possible.

What about my PDA? Well, nope, not there either.

I wouldn't mind these devices using protocols on top of IP rather than their own system to implement the various profiles, but to be honest, it's not a very big issue. Plus, of course, there are some applications (headsets, keyboards and mice) where I am not at all convinced that IP is the right way to go.

Range is not as important for these applications, the powerful addressing of IP (4 or 6) is not as important, but power consumption and requisite computational power are. And Bluetooth isn't perfect, but it performs better for these applications than WiFi.

Who Cares About the Opinions of Microsoft?

[Mooncaller]

The author is a Microsoftite. Microsoft is known to be against Bluetooth. They tried to highjack the standard but the Europeans balked. Its just like the situation with USB especialy USB2. If Microsoft can't control the technology, they will ALWAYS attempt to kill it. I sure as hell don't want to use 802.11 to connect my keyboard and mouse to my system, and I don't want to be limited to some half backed propietary Microsoft influenced design from Logitech either.

Re:Who Cares About the Opinions of Microsoft?

[EddWo]

I agree that microsofts support of bluetooth has been very poor. But wasn't it Microsoft itself that released the first bluetooth connected keyboard and mouse?

http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/keyboard/wodbt _i nfo.asp

Re:Who Cares About the Opinions of Microsoft?

[mobileskimo]

True. Which is why MS does so well in the market. They can crap all over something if they can't own it. And it crapping doesn't work, then adopt it and be the first ubiquitous supplier. And if that doesn't work, lets see if they'll buy out all the other competitors. Even then, they could come up with another standard to displace it. They have so many options, so that you end up with no options.

What is Bluetooth?

[posa]

Bluetooth is far from dead. When the public realize what you can with it, it will be more widly accepted.
For exampel of what it it capable of, look at Salling Clicker "in action"
http://homepage.mac.com/jonassalling/Shar eware/Cli cker/iTunesControllerDemo.html (many minutes .mov).

It is even be possible to wath your computer screen on you mobile phone if you wold like to. The protocolls for doing this is IN THE STANDARD. Thats wats make Bluetooth so powerful.
Bluetooth is far more than just a data link.

Me english good not.

Death of bluetooth

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a much better article at ZDnet listing the many difficiencies, problems, and bugs with bluetooth.

Even the head people from the Bluetooth Special Interest Group weren't able to make many devices work.

uhh, yes you are

[Trepidity]

If you can afford to spend $5000 on computer-related stuff, you're rich.

Re:uhh, yes you are

[entrox]

I have a dual MDD PowerMac, a TiBook, an iPod, a Siemens S55 and drive a Mercedes C-Class. My father is an electrician and my mother works in a supermarket - I'm a student myself and I could afford to spend money on all this stuff. You see, the secret is having a job and being able to manage money.

Re:uhh, yes you are

[SpaceJunkie]

Hold on- You missed something.. What was YOUR job?
Anyway I do use a mobile and a PDA and a digital camera often. I also (being a robot enthusiast) would like to see the use of bluetooth to replace some of the troublesome infra-red uplink devices I use. While 802.11b is good for laptops, for a microcontroller bluetooth seems more like a minimal point to point protocol - which is all I need. Yes I know I could integrate a webserver the size of a penny stamp - but really all I need is the equiv of RS232 without wires.

Re:uhh, yes you are

[Wyatt Earp]

"If you can afford to spend $5000 on computer-related stuff, you're rich."

TiBook 550 MHz - $2200
Garmin GPS - $189
Cell phone - $50
iPod - $300
Camera - $200

$2939

I made 27,000 after taxes last year. That's *not* rich.

Re:uhh, yes you are

[hesiod]

> You see, the secret is having a job and being able to manage money.

No, the secret is having a lot of money to manage. Most non-rich people don't actually have money to manage, it all goes from paycheck to bills. Managing money or not, I could not afford all those things even if I had no rent to pay.

Re:uhh, yes you are

[gklinger]

It seems to me that the definition of rich is relative. You are saying that you aren't rich but perhaps a more accurate statement might be that you don't 'feel rich'. The $27,000 (I'm assuming US dollars) you made (after taxes) last year is considerably more than many of your fellow citizens made. To the millions living below the poverty line and unable to afford the bare necessities, one who can afford to purcahse a Powerbook, a GPS, a cell phone, an iPod and a camera is indeed rich. To those living in the third world who last year made and lived on less than you spent on your iPod, you're filthy rich.

The original statement that only rich people have PDAs is accurate, albeit some pedantic. All of us who have the luxury of reading Slashdot ARE rich. I'm not picking on you and I thnk that the fasion in which you spend the money you earn is entirely your business but please, understand that the majority of people on this planet are not living as well as you are.

And now, back to our on-topic discussion,

Bob Frankston...

[Obyron]

...You sir, are an idiot.

I'm one of the geeks that sells geeks the toys they use to perpetrate their geekery. I talk to lots of people (from geeks right on down to ordinary schmoes) who have questions about Bluetooth, and seem generally excited when they find out it works. I have to take pains with every single customer (who's not a geek) to explain that Bluetooth is not WiFi. It is not meant to replace WiFi.

From the article: "It's only now that people are discovering that Bluetooth's focus on eliminating wires means still having the limitations of wires in that you can only connect between nearby devices." That's the point. Bluetooth is good for what it's good for, and not much else: a Personal Area Network, or Office Area Network. Sync your PDA wirelessly. Print wirelessly. Get a Sony Ericsson T68i with Bluetooth, sign up for internet on it, and use your nifty Bluetooth PDA to check your email anywhere you can get a cell signal.

Bluetooth is about as dead as *BSD is.

Wires I never use

[fm6]

I own a headset for my cell, but I never use it. All that cable is too bulky for my pocket. And it gets tangled up so easily. And it's a pain to stop and plug it in. Now, a Bluetooth headset, I could just stick it in my pocket with cell, than put it on when the phone rings.

I'd also like to share data between my cell and Palm. Have a cable for it, but it's too cumbersome. Might be worth the trouble to sync my phone books, but it's too awkard for web browsing. So I use the ridiculous WML browser built into my phone. Now if both my phone and my Palm had Bluetooth.

I probably will never get a bluetooth card for my laptop. Then again, I could share data with other people at a conferance table. Or print. Yeah, I can do that now -- have to mess with an Ethernet cable, make sure my DHCP client is configured for the local network, hope there's a hub slot free, hope the dongle on my Ethernet card doesn't break again, hope everybody I need to share data with is also properly set up...

He's not dead!

[fm6]

He's just pining for the fjords!

Re:He's not dead!

[cookd]

I won an award for those fjords.

Re:He's not dead!

[Green Dragon]

He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Re:He's not dead!

[TheLoneGundam]

To paraphrase one of the most important philosophers of all time, Chico Marx: "Whya Fjord? Whya no Chevy?"

Re:He's not dead!

[Grizzlysmit]

Painting your teeth blue went out of fashion long ago, the fashion is violet now :-)

The price is going to kill it.

[lobotomy]

Have you looked into the price of Bluetooth? I want to put a GPS unit in my car. Rather than connecting a serial cable to a PC or PDA every time I enter the vehicle, how about using Bluetooth? Trying to find serial to Bluetooth adapters is difficult -- finding affordable ones is impossible. The cheapest unit I found was around $170 -- and that was just for the unit that would attach to the GPS unit.

I thought this stuff was supposed to be used in keyboards and mice. Where are the cheap Bluetooth modules?

All the limitations of wires????

[10Ghz]

I use Bluetooth with my laptopn and Nokia 6130i. I can keep the phone in coat-pocket and use Bluetooth to make data-calls using the laptop. I can walk around with the laptop while the phone stays put (range is about 10-20 meters) and the connection between the phone and the laptop never misses a beat. You would need pretty long wires for that!

I don't have to mess around with wires or IR-ports. I can just take the laptop and connect wirelessly.

Then there are the Bluetooth headsets. I don't use those, but they are pretty cool. No need to carry the phone around, all you need is the headset.

just in case you were wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you are an idiot.

Positives & Negatives

[glassware]

In favor of bluetooth:

1) I don't have a wire from my headphone to my cellphone.

Against bluetooth:

1) I have to charge my headphone battery separately.
2) Possible interference or static in the connection between my cellphone and my headpiece, in addition to the static between my cellphone and the other party on the phone line.
3) My headset is now huge to accomodate the battery.
4) My headset has doubled or tripled in price.

I don't think I'll ever be interested in using bluetooth for headsets, keyboards, or mice.

On the other hand...

I can think of at least ten devices in my house that now use infrared links that could be improved by using something similar to bluetooth. Can my TV / VCR remotes be made more cheaply, effectively, and with some sort of standard device discovery mechanism? If so, sign me up.

Re:Positives & Negatives

[ocelotbob]

Can my TV / VCR remotes be made more cheaply, effectively, and with some sort of standard device discovery mechanism? If so, sign me up.

More efficiently, maybe. Cheaper, nope. Remotes have been refined and tweaked to the point where they're damn cheap to make. There's not that much more to them than an IC and a handfull of discreet components. Once everything goes digital and gets a firewire port, however, I'd imagine that there will be talk of a standard control protocol for firewire entertainment devices, and once that happens, some smart group of lads and lasses will build a decent wireless entertainment control hub. Until that day, your chances of home entertainment device makers doing something sane like standardizing remote signals are slim and none, and slim just walked out the building.

Not just Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth defines not just layers 0 to 2 as WLAN does. It brings a slew of application layers: audio, imaging, keyboard, sim access. In that aspect it is more like USB, where a single driver can handle nearly all mass storage devices. And it is wireless, tiny, low power. And the security model is reasonable and integrated, and also suited to devices with no buttons.

A phone can't handle a WLAN card battery wise. A headset surely not. And what are you going to do? Run Shoutcast to your wireless headset and claim it is 'cool'?

But it is not perfect - yet. Interoperability sometimes sucks (have to turn on phone first, then headset, or it won't work. Stuff like that).

Ethernet everywhere, but not everything is Ethernet.

Dead? And the smell??

[S.Gleissner]

Sorry, but the internet connection over Bluetooth from my Linux notebook to my GSM/GPRS nokia phone isn't dead, so isn't my Bluetooth-headset. And it does not even smell funny!

Nokia

[Mr_Silver]

Quite simply: Bluetooth will fail if Nokia don't start putting it on more than their most expensive mobile phones.

In the mobile phone market Nokia lead such a commanding lead over every other manufacturer that they can practically dictate what does and doesn't suceed. Remember EMS? Course you don't, thats because Nokia went with their own Smart Messaging format and practically killed the format overnight.

Seconly, once they've done that - it won't become popular until the "pay as you go" handsets have it as standard funcationality. Look at SMS and WAP, the number of phones that don't have them are miniscule.

Soon it will be camera's and colour screens, bluetooth needs to be in that list to suceed.

USB didn't have the same argument

[Trepidity]

USB had a point: it was much faster than serial/parallel ports, and it could support more devices. You cannot plug in 12 devices to your serial port.

Re:USB didn't have the same argument

[Moofie]

Same arguments apply to BT. It's faster than IR, and more flexible.

And, USB was going NOWHERE until Apple made it the universal standard for their computers.

Now, I won't argue that the iMac was the sole motivator for USB adoption, but the number of USB devices went through the roof about three to six months after the iMac was released.

Did the Bluetooth group wound you as a child or something? Why does this technology make you so angry? Show me on the doll where they touched you!

Re:USB didn't have the same argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did the Bluetooth group wound you as a child or something? Why does this technology make you so angry? "

I'm just sick of hearing about it. For like 2 years now its been Bluetooth this, bluetooth that. Shut up already. We know about it. It's ok, but pretty boring. Use it and move along.

Same deal with 3g phones, GPRS and WAP. Make them, sell them etc..we'll use them when there's a point. No need to keep shouting about it all the time.

This guy is absolutely clueless

[Andre Breton]

I don't want to miss being able to just come near my comp to do stuff with my SonyEricsson T68i:

Check this.
(No I'm not affiliated in any way with this guy)

Now really

[xihr]

Was it ever alive?

Killer short-range blue-tooth applications

[shic]

The short range nature of blue-tooth can actually be beneficial⦠consider the following applications.

• Zero effort extra layer of PC security â" âoeCanâ(TM)t handshake my phone â" it probably isnâ(TM)t me⦠require full authentication.â
• Blue-tooth car radio â" jump in a car with a phone and it automatically negotiates that calls should be played through the sound system.
• Dial land-line calls from my mobile (no more squint-dial, squint-dial etc) â" no worries about controlling your neighbours phone!
• Locate people by mobile in hot-desk environments.

Iâ(TM)m sure there are more!

Re:Killer short-range blue-tooth applications

[dadman]

Also see the Salling Clicker. It can interact with (using AppleScript) virtually everything on your Mac with a Sony Ericsson phone, including the latest T610.

I am not so sure he is right

[Anonymous Coward]

One can blame the bluetooth profiles, but hey, they do things like voice and fax and printing to work right out of the box. With 802.11, you already today have several different, incompatible voice over IP protocols.

And you have support for PAN/LAn TCPIP in Bluetooth. The major problem is rather that it have taken ages for developer to bring in support for the BT LAN Profile. Heck, my P800 CANT yet use it. I cant browse from Opera via bluetooth, to an bluetooth AP and over to internet, because SonyEricsson and Symbians developer didnt even think about implementing it! (Darn short sighted people if you ask me)

The major problem with bluetooth, is that many companies behind it doesnt take it seriously. Microsoft still have trouble with Bluetooth. Intel care zero, 3COM too. Despite that this trojka was the main team behind bluetooth.

Only Ericsson takes bluetooth somewhat seriously.

The best companies who really take bluetooth seriosly, is Palm and Apple.

Microsoft ought to fix their part, include full support with Windows XP withouth having to d/l a single extra thing. And Intel ought to include BT in their chipset for laptops. If not, they should say they dont care about bluetooth, its all or nothing at all, not "lets make something crap"

orjan@mac.com

Bluetooth is great

[hovik]

for exchanging pictures and numbers with friends' mobile phones.

AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows that bluetooth isn't going to get anywhere. Look at AI - the robots at the end have to touch each other to share data. Two thousand years and they still can't get it working.

Clean my desk

[Maset]

I'd rather not have to assign an IP for my mouse, keyboard, digital camera/memory card reader, printer (that sits on a shelf above my monitor), monitor.

I'd also like to not have wires connected to the above and possibly my microphone, speakers (have bluetooth talk to the stereo?).

WiFi, networking.... Bluetooth, replacing wires.

Bluetooth + GPS , modules

[sonamchauhan]

> "I want to put a GPS unit in my car... using Bluetooth? "

Funny... I had the same idea as yours, except I was also thinking of using a Solar cell to power the Bluetooth/GPS unit instead of using the car's battery. This would make the unit completely cordless. It would mount under in the front of the dash, under the windshield.

I was surfing this discussion in the hope someone would point to cheap Bluetooth modules. Didn't fine any, but I've posted this comment previously with a source for $60 Bluetooth modules.

Bluetooth develop center

[xluap]

Bluetooth was developed in Emmen, the Netherlands. The Erricsson factory in Emmen made pagers and cellular phones. However they stopped making pagers and phones because of the bad telecom market. Only the bluetooth development center with 30 persons was left. Some days ago i read in the paper the bluetooth development center will be closed too. Bluetooth will be developed further in Sweden, however maybe this is a sign bluetooth is'nt doing well.

The reports of it's death are greatly exaggerated.

[OS24Ever]

I don't know about most of you, but finding a bluetooth enabled device that actually does anything is difficult if not impossible. Systems from vendors do not have a lot of models with bluetooth, or it is an option.

Apple is the only vendor I know that ships it in most of their models. IBM's Thinkpads have a few models with it.

And the next device I'd want, the phones are kinda rare. Only one or two and then the plans are either not offered/don't support anything that I would need (national coverage with no roaming fees with a large amount of minutes under $50 a month, Sprint is the only one that offers and so far they have NO bluetooth phones). On top of that, I want PDA functions in a phone with bluetooth. That doesn't exist either.

The next piece I'd want is a headset.

I have my mouse. Of course it only works with Windows/Intel somehow (surprise, it's a Microsoft device)

The problem with Bluetooth is people expect it to have wi-fi range. Bluetooth was something that you could use in an office cube, or a meeting room, and that is it. It's not supposed to solve world hunger or network a 5000 sq ft. building.

Most importantly

[Andy Dodd]

What part of wires is Bluetooth unable to (and never will be able to) replace?

Power.

Also, Bluetooth is simply Too Slow. Not when modern PDAs sync via USB or Firewire.

Since you're going to have to plug in your PDA, phone, or iPod to charge it anyway, why bother with Bluetooth which is an obscenely slow way to sync your phone when you can charge it and sync it at 10-20 times the data rate or more?

I remember a few articles ago some dumbass thought that the iPod should use Bluetooth instead of Firewire... Does he realize how long it would take to transfer 15+ GB of files via Bluetooth? Even a handful of MP3s (20-30 MB at a time) would be a nightmare. And he'd still have to plug in the Pod to charge it.

And the reason none of those matter

[Andy Dodd]

1) They provide power

That device is going to have to be plugged in no matter how you want to do it. (Unless you power it with AAs or AAAs, but no one does that anymore with devices that Bluetooth targets - It's all internal Li-Ion these days.)

Bluetooth's power consumption disadvantage

[Andy Dodd]

Is infinite.

Bluetooth can't charge your PDA or phone. A sync cradle can.

Therefore, no matter how little power the BT circuitry consumes, the fact that it is replacing a prime charging opportunity for the mobile device makes its power consumption disadvantage over a wired device worse than infinite. (Battery consumption during sync rather than battery recharging.)

I have no problem with the need to place my PDA on a cradle to sync it, because I have to place it on the cradle anyway to charge it.

flamebait article!

[hitmark]

that article is ignorant flamebait, he is in essence comparing apples and oranges! no way do i want to have wifi in my cellphone, it is allready eating batterypower at analarming rate when i turn on all the fancy effects! and the cost of bluetooth itself is cheap, the only problem is that most cellphone makers have only put them into theyre highend phones makeing bluetooth seem costly:( bluetooth and wifi/wlan replace 2 diffrent wires, bluetooth tace care of all those link cables (those linking pda-phone, pda-pc, phone-pc, phone-phone and so on) without the limits that irda have. wifi/wlan in comparison replaces your ehternet cableing and its hubs, awitches and whatsnot (you still need that rotuer to connect it to the net tho)... bluetooth is perfect for whne you have a cellphone with a handfree set, you do not get entangled in the wires while using it. hmm, i wonder when the first bluetooth enabled "discman" or mp3 player gets of the ground, think about having that player in your backpack and there is no wire connecting the earplugs to it. maybe even the same earplugs could be used for awnsering a call on you cellphone if theyhave a mic buildtin:)

Interview with Bluetooth inventor Jaap Haartsen

[MZdoctor]

A regional newspaper (Dagblad van het Noorden) happened to carry a short interview with Bluetooth inventor Jaap Haartsen on June 7th. Here is a translation for the unfortunate few who cannot obtain the DvhN or read dutch.

Ericssons move from E mmen gives Bluetooth inventor sleepless nights

(A short introduction explains that dutchman Jaap Haartsen developed the chips with which devices such as telephones and laptops can communicate over short distances, however AFAIK he designed the protocol as well.) The Bluetooth Innovation Center, the company Haartsen works for, is moving to Lund in Sweden. This means that Bluetooth R&D also leaves Emmen.

The Bluetooth lab is leaving Emmen. That must make you feel sad.

âoeItâ(TM)s a shock. For me personally and for everyone here. The managementâ(TM)s decision has given me sleepless nights. I am sad that the Bluetooth lab is leaving The Netherlands.

What are you going to do at Ericsson now?

âoeThe peop le in Emmen have the option to move to Sweden. I havenâ(TM)t decided yet. I am a member of the Bluetooth management team and I already go to Sweden every other week. But the home base, my office in Emmen, is closing down. I will remain closely involved with B luetooth; after all it is my baby, as it were.â

No doubt you strongly opposed the move from Emmen?

âoeYou bet I did. I was involved in the discussions over the plan. We tried to keep open the possibility of staying in Emmen. However the parent companyâ(TM)s interests were deemed more important. Ericsson has to survive the economic dip so we had to accept the closure.â

Ericsson is lowering its R&D budget. That means they are investing less in their future. Surely that is not a sensible thing to do?

âoeTimes are hard and you have to earn the income that pays for the R&D. The parent company is striving for a balance. On the one hand one must be ready for the future, on the other hand one must survive. For the time be ing the focus is on sales. You can maintain the level of investment and wait until the plug is pulled out completely, or you can act now. That is what is happening now.â

The expectations concerning the sales of Bluetooth chips were high. It has not been an unmitigated success to date.

âoeThe long term outlook is good. The market is reviving.â

Weâ(TM)ve heard that before regarding Bluetooth.

âoeThe number of telephones equipped with Bluetooth chips is growing with leaps and bounds. The same is true for other products. The development of that market is very promising. The semiconductor industry is now increasing its production capacity for Bluetooth chips. Thatâ(TM)s going in the right direction as well.â

(End of interview)

Why has Apples flourished and Oranges failed?

[toolz]

'nuff said!

that's kind of weird

[Trepidity]

Do you have no expenses or something? Most people have to pay rent, and taxes, and buy food, and car insurance, and car maintenance, and house/apartment maintenance, and so on.

Bluetooth programming is easier than you think!

[tjhighpoint]

We sell a C++ SDK for Bluetooth programming on the PocketPC and can testify it's alive and well. As several enlightened people have pointed out here there are 3 main advantages of Bluetooth over WiFi that won't go away for several years, at least on mobile devices like laptops, cellphones, and PDAs: 1. low cost 2. lower battery consumption 3. device discovery We have customers using our SDK for a lot of short-range control usages (equipment, robots, games). The discovery process alone recommends it over WiFi in many cases - the ability to say "who's out there within 30 feet of me?" is something you just can't do with WiFi. And WiFi PAN is only doable if you place all your WiFi cards into "adhoc" mode (not requiring an Access Point), which is not something your average user knows how to do. WiFi is an SUV - powerful, expensive, gas-guzzling. Bluetooth is a high-performance 18-speed bicycle. People who complain they can't "coexist" and want to drive their SUVs on the bikepaths should stick to the highways. There's always a time and place where it's better to ride your bike. Tim Johnson www.high-point.com

well, yeah, it's better than IR

[Trepidity]

I meant in comparison to other ways of hooking up devices at close range (say, USB). There I don't see BlueTooth as having much of an advantage, and somewhat of a disadvantage due to cost.

I mostly just see it as gadgetry for the sake of gadgetry. And I don't like being forced to pay more for stuff I buy because it includes gadgets I don't need.

At least I can still buy corded mice and keyboards.

Re:well, yeah, it's better than IR

[Moofie]

USB cannot do peer-to-peer connections. It needs a fair amount of processing power on the host end in order to do anything.

And you can still buy phones and other devices that don't have BlueTooth. BT is designed to be very, very, very inexpensive to implement. The figures I've seen are $.25 or so per device for additional chips and stuff.

Me, I love my Logitech cordless keyboard. The fact that you do not is totally irrelevant to me.

So, again...why does BT offend you? What's wrong with it, other than the fact that YOU might not think it's useful?

not going to die!

[butane_bob2003]

Bluetooth itself works quite nicely, it may take time for more technology sectors to adopt it. I could see many uses in the military especially, personal ground battle systems are increasingly more device centric. The newer issue M4 rifles have optic devices attached that integrate with nightvision head gear for low/no light targeting, this is all done through wires at this point if i'm not mistaken. The next gen tactical suit is going to be full of electronics, you wont want wires connecting everything in battle field conditions.

OT: Stapler location

[jdray]

Have you seen my stapler?

I used it to staple the cover sheet on my TPS report.

What what what?

[stonecypher]

I find this article curious, given that it's been less than two days since the article about all of those Motorola wearable smart devices.

I'm with the guy from the front of the message queue that said that the article is silly, based on that it argues that Bluetooth has failed by not addressing concerns that are counter to its design princip,les. Bluetooth doesn't work for WANs because it's a PAN connection - personal area network. It's intended to help you get rid of very small wires that connect chunks of distributed devices together - headphones to CD players are the common example.

My belief is that Bluetooth is still a bit too early. It's good that it's becoming ubiquitous now; still, if more PCs included it by default (I mean come on, guys, ethernet cards are really not that useful to most people; how many people run LANs in their home, or have a cable modem/dsl modem that isn't a PCI card or USB device?) it'd start to really take off. PDAs should drop IR. It's stupid.

Look, the real problem is that nobody really understands just how useful watches that can display broadcast data are, right now. There are three reasons:

Oone, it's not pervasive enough to make a useful advantage. Once stock tickers and email come across a watch conveniently, tha'tll begin to change.

Two, it's too rare (currently nonexistant, soon to be too expensive, later to be reasonable.) I mean, how long did it take Palm to break the $100 barrier? A parent can get a GameBoy for $70. If Palm got off of its ass while it still had money and funded some game developers, things would have been different. The early adopters aren't technophiles; there aren't enough of us to matter in the economic sense. They're businesspeople and kids - the people that want toys and don't have to worry about money.

Three, there's the Star Trek factor. Everyone on SlashDot, in my opinion, gets this ass backwards; we tend to forget that we're in the minority. Nobody else wants to look like they walked off of the set of Star Trek. Look at music videos. Look at fashion shows. Go to a high school football game, a rave, or just out in the sun somewhere. (Those of you who have friends that aren't sure where to find the sun should offer assistance; we all know at least one of them, and despite being transparent and having Gollum eyes, they're people too.) You will not find anything more complex than a Palm Pilot.

Oh, by the way, a hint to you designers out there: I was watching some B science fiction show on Sci Fi at 4 in the morning last night, and one of their props - a hologram projector, by the looks of it - was a palm pilot with a silver spray painted shell. This is bad. You still haven't made something that looks normal. Remove thumb from ass and try again until you get it right, please. I love my palm pilot, and I've owned more than one of them, starting with a Palm 1000, and you know what? I still think it looks silly. Also, you can't use it to play games. The buttons were laid out by someone with no hands, I'm quite certain.

Bluetooth isn't dead. It doesn't have its market yet. Look how well it's doing when we can't even come up with anything better than headphones to explain what it's for.

True not everyone needs them

[digitalmonkey2k1]

"A simple paper date book works fine." There are a few places that I consider a PDA to have more of an advantages. I am currently a pencil and paper type of person and I have learned the errors of my ways. I guess it will all depend on your job/region. As it is now I am smack in the middle of Iraq doing signal work w/ the us army. I have about 30 scraps of paper in my pocekts at a time and also 2 mini note pads. As I find a PDA would greatly increase my organization out here, on several occasions per day I find myself digging through scraps of paper to find an IP, or even a phone number. Some of the cases my notepads fall apart due to the glue melting in this heat, or the ink smearing due to the amount of sweating I do out here even in the shade. The idea of dragging my laptop around w/ the info in the dust is out of the question, and that makes the paper my only current option. So for the general population I would say "Hell no, don't waste your money!". As for my personal opinion however, I feel that anyone that deals with large scale support of multiple pc's/telephone swithing systems/servers could greatly benifit from them.

Yes, and..

[Inoshiro]

" Actually, low-wattage 1mbps range limited 802.11b chipsets have the same kind of power consumption as BT chipsets. They also are similarly priced, have a similar range, and offer comparable bandwidth."

With none of the readily available compatibility (where is my low-power USB-dongle 802.11b chipset? I can buy a BT dongle), such as with the bluetooth cell phone, or the bluetooth dongle I can stick on my GBA SP.

Bluetooth is only dead to those who haven't bought a new portable device in the last 2 years.

SMS does work in the US

[xenoc_1]

About a year ago all 6 nationwide carriers contracted with a 3rd-party service that provides SMS interoperability. You can send an SMS, for example from Verizon (CDMA) to T-Mobile (GSM) with just the phone number - no need for the email address. And it works to reply back the same way.

Works with Verizon, Cingular (TDMA & GSM), AT&T (TDMA & GSM), T-Mobile (GSM), Nextel(iDEN). It also works one-way to SprintPCS (CDMA) but Sprint doesn't support sending SMS. They can receive SMS but must use their Wireless Web to send message as emails.

Just because we don't have a single standard doesn't mean we don't have SMS. Yes, behind the scenes it uses the email gateways to cross carriers, but it's totally transparent to the user - just enter the phone number.

Bluetooth development tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Java and Bluetooth together make a very viable option. Take a look at the book:

www.javabluetooth.com

Re:The reports of it's death are greatly exaggerat

[dadman]

On top of that, I want PDA functions in a phone with bluetooth. That doesn't exist either.

There are the SONY Ericsson P800, and the Nokia 7650. They both run Symbian, have Bluetooth, and loads of PDA features. P800 also got handwriting (sort of) recognition.

YEA RIGHT GET REAL

[sc0hma]

I see bluetooth used on a daily bassis. Cell, Phones, Laptops, Stage Sound Systems.