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
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.
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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!
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.
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!
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.