Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Oh, wait, PHB's read this stuff but not slashdot, nevermind.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
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.
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.
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.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
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.
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...
G4 Hackintosh
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.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh and I bet your TV has one of those sliding channel changers my GrandMa had back in the day?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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...
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
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....
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.
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.
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.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
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.
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?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
"There were approximately 10m PDAs sold worldwide in 2002. Of those, around 4m were sold in the United States."
a sa les2002.htm
t .h tml
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/pd
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/2002commercerepor
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.
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.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
[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.
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
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.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
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,