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?"
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!
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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...
Banaaaana!
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>
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
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.
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.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
>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.
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?
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
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!
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!
For all I know, the USB folks do have such a standard mini-connector.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
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.
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.
>
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
This sig has been deprecated.
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
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.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
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.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
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.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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".
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.
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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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).