Slashdot Mirror
Rob Enderle Announces Death of Bluetooth
prostoalex writes "Rob Enderle is typing away (perhaps even on his very own Ferrari laptop) at Intel Developer Forum, noting that Intel gave up on IEEE Ultrawideband and decided to switch to Wireless USB derivative. This, in Mr. Enderle's opinion, signifies the end of life for Bluetooth standard, although Enderle calls Bluetooth 'dead' in the title of the article and 'all but dead' in the actual text."
I never used Bluetooth and I don't know many people who had/have any use for it. Infrared is cheaper, if not quicker-I remember being able to browse the internet on my Palm using an infrared link to my mobile phone. Pretty cool.
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
Someone needs to tell that to my Apple PowerBook G4, Sony T68i, Axim X3 and Jabra BT200 headset. I really don't have the time, I am too busy using Bluetooth keeping them synced. iSync owns.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I'm sitting here typing on my Bluetooth-enabled Powerbook, navigating around the screen with my Microsoft Bluetooth Intellimouse Explorer. These two companies are actively promoting Bluetooth - and they've even learned to play together nicely on this particular playground.
What weight, exactly, will an Intel decision have here? Aren't laptops the most desirable place for Bluetooth peripheral use? And aren't most laptops (PCs, as well as Macs) made overseas with non-Intel motherboards - even when the processors are made by Intel?
One company has decided - for now - to follow a different path. Big deal.
#DeleteChrome
yeah they will. It might take a couple years for it to catch on, but why on earth would anyone use a 760kbps connection which has (on windows anyway) the worst drivers ever written when wireless USB runs at 480Mbps? Power may be an issue. Didn't have a chance to talk to many people about that at IDF (too busy doing booth duty myself)
I've got a bluetooth PDA and bluetooth on my PC. And we have a bluetooth barcode scanner at work. None of the devices can ever link to each other reliably.
Now, as a disclaimer I work in the USB industry. I've still yet to see a WUSB spec (soon I hope, lots of questions about how things work, particularly about whether the existing single host/multi device model will remain the same). Guess time will tell. Bluetooth is great when it works (and I *do* think it's mostly a driver issue), but we can do better...
Now imagine doing that while you are walking, with your phone on your belt, or in your backpack.
I use IR synching with my Palm and Powerbook, and the connectivity between my phone and same powerbook is about 1000x more reliable and more useful, since I don't even have to touch the phone to have the whole thing work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
does he know that a large majority of geeks/developers/tech people are laughing at him even more now?
It always seems that they are one of the most poorly-named companies, from the way they act. Death of Bluetooth? OS X on Intel? A Ferrari laptop? It seems like Intel just doesn't ever get the intel they need.
Apple by it's nature seems to be a good indicator of what's in.
:)
ADB was never "in"
I wouldn't call bluetooth dead, but what Intel has developed is pretty amazing. When I first heard about bluetooth I had visions of getting rid of the cord nightmare behind my TV cabinet. Put a DVD player near my TV, and plug it into the wall, and have it wirelessly send a signal to my TV and my Reciever. Unfortunately, bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for this.
Bluetooth will be used for cellphones and keyboards, and what intel is developing will be used for cdburners, dvd players, etc.
Is this the same Intel that claims we don't need 64-bit microprocessors, but on the other hand claims that chip clock cycles matter?
I for one like Bluetooth. It was a major reason why I went with Sony instead of Nokia for my last cell phone purchase. The T616 is a great phone, and Bluetooth only makes it better. Calendaring, downloading ringtones (that's MIDI to you and me!) and transferring photos snapped with the camera in my phone makes it extremely convenient. And the short range feature can be seen as a sort-of security enhancement because if anyone has figured out a backdoor to hack into my phone, they have to be really close to me to do it versus if it was an 802.11 signal.
This guy must work for SCO. Wait, he did vouch for them...
Since it took Apple to make this standard a STANDARD here in the States, I wish they could do a little more to make FireWire800 used more. It seems like Apple advances other people's technology (USB, SATA, Bluetooth) better than their own (FireWire) technologies...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
That is true, but therein lies the danger of blindly opposing (just as dangerous of blindly following!).
He's an idiot, for sure, but in this case he's right. Accidentally, I'm sure, but IBM and NEC both just dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was and how to plug the holes in it safely.
It's almost impossible to get a Bluetooth core from any IP dealer, much less an ASIC vendor. And that's mostly the fault of Bluetooth itself for not being sure what it is -- spec-compliant implementations just weren't playing together well.
IMHO, the spec never settled and was originated by under-qualified individuals. Some of the braver, more vocal persons involved agree. Googling would yield some interesting commentary pages from some of those involved/de-involved in Bluetooth, if you're really interested.
And, if you don't think Intel can affect such a thing, try standing on the back of InfiniBand and trying to see through the dust to catch a glimpse of PCI-express as it buzzes by when Intel switched from the former to the latter.
Wireless USB comes from the same group that spec'ed out USB 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, and that managed to out-sell the arguably-superior firewire spec. I think wireless USB will last longer than Bluetooth.
everything in moderation
Well, it may have short range, but the bandwidth is actually pretty high. It's something like 1.5 Mbit. While that's no 10/100 network card or even Wi-Fi, it uses MUCH less power than Wi-Fi and it doesn't require the wires of the network card.
The U.S. will get there, especially with Bluetooth showing up in some new Toyotas to link your phone to built-in handsfree systems when you get into the car.
Actually, wireless power may not be that far away, at least in the future I envision...
They have a number of medical devices that get embedded in a persons arm, leg, chest, etc that are charged by induction rather than a direct connection.
It is a safe way of powering devices. One example is an artificial heart or kidney (can't remember) that is recharged by putting on a cuff like a blood pressure cuff for 30 minutes per day.
Now the application for nerds:
I envision a desk with an induction plate just below the formica on the desktop. Your wireless keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitor, PDA, phone, cell phone, iPod, etc can all be powered by induction.
It's safe, wireless, fairly efficient, and available today.
Actually, there is wireless power. But it doesn't work very well. Using just a few electronic parts from the local Radio Shack (depending on how well stocked your local Radio Shack is) you can build an AM radio that is completely powered by the signal of the radio station. No power cord. No batteries. Not really enough power from the air to run a speaker, but enough for headphones. And it's free. As long as you don't break it, and the AM station is on the air you can listen for free forever. Now, if this could only work on FM then we'd have something special.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
The death of Bluetooth view is being advocated from a perspective that says Intel is in the driver's seat - a very PC centric view.
Take a look from another perspective - device centred - and the picture looks much much different. There are millions of bluetooth enabled cell phones (mine included) in consumers hands around the world; Palm is using the standard in their exorbitantly expensive models.
So I'd have to suggest that consumers are going to demand compatiblity there - the Bluetooth market is far from dead, even if there are outstanding issues (pairing - although I've never had a problem with this.)
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
Hmm
According to this article, Intel is putting Bluetooth into the Centrino 2. From the article:
Hmm, on one hand, we have Enderle's "analysis" -- on the other, a direct quote from an Intel exec. Which to chose....
Uh? So really there is no point in all those wireless thingies, right?
Anyway, I thought that the physics of ultrawideband were not done yet. We may well not see an actual UWB for another 5 years. Remember USB, Bluetooth? They were years late! Is Intel hyping vaporware?
Nobox: Only simple products.
Check your history man. USB didn't take off until Apple came out with the iMac (think 1997, not Windows 98). Also, Wi-Fi was priced in the $700+ per base station range till Apple introduced it for $300. Hardly anyone even knew it existed till Phil Schiller jumped off a ledge during a keynote speech holding an iBook that maintained its network connection. So believe it or not (and I guess you won't) but Apple is the reason both of those technologies didn't just drop off the face of the earth and suddenly became widely accepted.
If you already have your devices and they work well together, why the hell do you care about companies dropping support?
/. troller trying to make a big deal out of nothing.
Because the next time I buy a laptop, I don't want to also have to buy a new cell phone, GPS receiver, PDA, wireless mouse, etc.
Retard. You are just another reactionary
Have a nice day.
Intel actually blew it big with their HomeRF wireless crap and are now selling 802.11 routers.
It took Microsoft years to get good USB support in Windows even with Intel pushing it (Win95 and Win98 support was awful, they finally got decent support in Win98SE). Mac's Bluetooth support is pretty damn good, and Longhorn should fix issues with Windows BlueTooth (I'm primarily a Mac user anymore, but a lot of people seem to have odd problems)
BlueTooth has proven to be pretty secure as a wireless standard, which is one thing it's going to be hard to convince customers and manufacturers about with wireless USB. Security was a big part of the slowness of Bluetooth's adoption.
I work in a large electronics store in Canada, and among other fragile, expensive toys, I sell cell phones. Lately I have had people asking about Bluetooth enabled phones, so that they can use them with their new car (usually the new Acura TL, although the Chrysler Pacifica and a few others offer it now) after getting a demo at the dealership.
I read somewhere that car manufacturers love the idea of providing a quick and easy handsfree interface in their vehicles, but without having to actually offer (and support) car-phones like some high end makes used to offer. This way, the customer can worry about the phone and service on their own.
I personally fitted a Sony Ericsson BT kit in my car and use it with my T616. It works gloriously. I can't imagine using a cell phone in a vehicle any other way now. Maybe as more automobile manufacturers include Bluetooth functionality, people will get to see just how cool and useful it can be.
yeah, i whole-heartedly agree with everything you've said. my biggest complaint about bluetooth is that its just not used to it's full potential. it seems to me to be the PERFECT replacement for remote-controls for TV, VCR, DVD, etc... line-of-site just straight up sucks, bluetooth is cheap, and its range is less than ideal for a lot of computer applications (wireless printer, etc...)
CNN has an interesting article titled Bluetooth: back with a vengeance from the business perspective rather than a pure tech perspective. Toyota and DaimlerChrysler putting Bluetooth into cars? It must be dead.
CNET also has some news from IDF including a piece on its ultrawideband strategies. Some interesting quotes from the article:
andMeanwhile, Enderle says:
Was Enderle at the same conference as everyone else?
All I can say about Bluetooth is that my Mac syncs just fine with my Nokia 3650, and I've never had to punch in a new contact into my phone directly. Different technologies have different uses: my Palm Pilot connects to my Mac via USB, my iPod via Firewire, my phone via Bluetooth. And because all those technologies work together through my Mac, I have identical data for my Address Book and Calendar on all four of those devices.
Just today I finally got my Bluetooth-enabled wireless mouse to play nicely with my PowerBook Al (the one with the integrated Bluetooth). Gone is the possibility of ripping a poor RF receiver from a USB socket since this mouse talks to the built-in receiver. Logitech failed to produce drivers for the MX-900 on the Mac OS X platform, but the thing is HID compliant and works right out of the box, save the extra buttons. Along comes GamePadCompanion and now all buttons work like a charm.
I'm sitting here typing this on Apple's BT keyboard, using a BT mouse, just as my BT enabled cell phone mutes my iTunes and announces on-screen that I have a phone call and even says who is calling me! Now if I could afford a BT headset I'd be set! It's too bad Bluetooth is dead!
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
A University lecturer where I live (Bristol, UK) has taken 1,300 flourescant tubes, and stuck them in the ground underneath a pylon (the result being they all ignite). Kind of spooks out people driving past when they see a thousand strip lights on with seemingly no wires.
Slightly off topic, but...
As I recall this was Nicola Tesla's last great invention, or attempt thereof. The Wardenclyffe Tower. According to various books Tesla was purported to have it working in his lab and the tower was an attempt to scale it up a few notches. The project fell through, however, when J.P. Morgan pulled his funding and told everyone else to do so as well.
Anyway, enough of the history lesson, back to the real "story".
Learn from other people's mistakes, you don't have time to make them all on your own.
Bluetooth has taken years to get momentum, it's far from perfect and I've no doubt wireless USB is cool. However, it's here to stay. I hope, anyway, or my Bluetooth car kit, my Powerbook and my P800 are all going to have to revert to cables.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
you had me at #!
Where I live (Italy) Toyota is pounding us with advertising of their city car Yaris with built-in Bluetooth support (specifically aimed at cellphone users).
If I understand correctly, Bluetooth-enabled cellphones are hardly available in the US, while they are becoming quite common in Europe. Is this becoming another "Europe vs. the US" technology trend?
And, Intel is the no. 1 maker of chips, but Toyota is now the no. 2 maker of cars... (GM is still no. 1 - for now)
In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
And more semi-wireless power - splashpower
Someone should tell Intel this:
t ml
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/69/35687.h
"Intel plans to integrate Bluetooth onto its next-generation Wi-Fi sub-system, it has emerged.
Speaking during his IDF keynote, Sean Maloney, Intel general manager of the company's Communications Group, revealed the chip maker is to offer a "specially designed low-power... integrated Bluetooth/Wi-Fi device".
About a year ago those who defended Bluetooth here on slashdot were quickly taken to task. I know this because I often found myself having to respond to many stupid comments and was amazed at the clueless negative moderations that spoke well of bluetooth. In the not so distant past anytime anyone on slashdot brought up Bluetooth someone (okay many) would instantly call it dumb and say WiFi was the answer.
The moderations today show a complete reversal. Interesting how the groupthink here DOES evolve to a more sensible position, even if it takes a while.
--- I do not moderate.
From all that the articles on Tesla's nifty experiments and ravings I have concluded that all Tesla was missing to make Bluetooth/WiFi work was a computer. I might be wrong but the tower he was making had the ability to transmit & receive on many frequencies and transmit power. Pretty cool stuff. I probably was extremely difficult to switch channels fast enough to have the global communication system that Tesla was hoping to have. Tesla was probably trying to do what satellite do now, which is send information around the globe. Where satellites send information around the world using space to relay messages great distances, Tesla wanted to send it using brute force, high powered signals. I think the only thing holding Tesla back was the fact that we could not go to space or use a computer to control the whole thing.
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
I think he's probably about as informed as most IT journalists out there, which is not a lot.
You forget a small, but important, detail: Enderle doesn't present himself to be a journalist. He purports to be a consultant. An uninformed consultant goes beyond stupid and well into unethical.