Ericsson Pulls Bluetooth Division

Promoting? by romper · 2004-08-31 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

From TFA:
"Although Ericsson will continue its involvement in the Bluetooth Special Interest Group as a promoter of the technology, Akesson said, 'We will no longer develop new hardware or new IPs based on the Bluetooth specification.' Ericsson also won't pursue new chip customers for Bluetooth technology licensing."

Could someone explain to me how telling the world you're no longer interested in developing the technology or finding people to license it to is a method of "promoting" Bluetooth?

--
Right is wrong when left is right.

Re:Promoting? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

Public Domain has been propular the last few years...
Re:Promoting? by Yokaze · 2004-08-31 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative

To my knowledge, the word "promoter" means someone in the second line of development. Either someone funding, or advertising it.

For example, a promoter of art is usually some rich guy, not necessarily the poor chap, who actually paints the pictures.

--
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Re:Promoting? by ElForesto · 2004-08-31 08:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think what they're trying to say is that with Bluetooth being standardized, they're perfectly happy to depend on 3rd-party manufacturers to make the peripherals. I imagine this is a way for them to focus on their core business and not get too involved in something ancilliary to it.

--
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
Re:Promoting? by romper · 2004-08-31 08:48 · Score: 1

To my knowledge, the word "promoter" means someone in the second line of development. Either someone funding, or advertising it.
Another definition:
To contribute to the progress or growth of; further.
-or-
To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.

--
Right is wrong when left is right.
Re:Promoting? by avida · 2004-08-31 09:03 · Score: 1

All the BlueTooth related technologies have been invented already, no need to spend effort on a completed project. I think they want to actually make money now, eh?
Re:Promoting? by watanuki · 2004-08-31 09:45 · Score: 3, Informative

"Promoter" is a membership level (the highest one, Ericsson did came up with the technology after all) of the Bluetooth SIG, and this seems to be the context of the quote. Also notice that it says "chip" customers. The 2nd article mentioned Ericsson will still do software development.
Re:Promoting? by rjamestaylor · 2004-08-31 09:48 · Score: 1
- For example, a promoter of art is usually some rich guy, not necessarily the poor chap, who actually paints the pictures.>
That's not a promoter, that's a patron.
The bloke selling the paintings is a promoter.
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Re:Promoting? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 09:58 · Score: 0

That's not a promoter, that's a patron.

Agreed. See also: sponsor.
Re:Promoting? by orulz · 2004-08-31 10:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The article states that Ericsson will no longer be making products for the semiconductor market- ie, they will no longer be making Bluetooth CHIPS. It has probably become more economical for Ericsson to buy said bluetooth chips from other (probably Chinese or Taiwanese) vendors and integrate them into their mobile devices instead of producing the chips they integrate themselves.

And this is nothing but a good thing, as it means that the Bluetooth implementations have become uniform to the point that Ericsson can trust other manufacturers to make the chips that they use.

While the majority of the comments for this article seem to be ringing the death-knell for Bluetooth or at least proclaiming that Ericsson has lost faith in the technology, you correctly show that this couldn't be further from the truth.

Might not be bad by attaboy · 2004-08-31 07:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

From the News.com.com article:

Ericsson doesn't plan to continue design and development around Bluetooth, but it will continue to support existing customers and include it in products, the company representative said. Bluetooth technology efforts will be incorporated into the work of Ericsson's Mobile Platforms group.

Glass Half Full Interpretation: Maybe this means that Bluetooth has become so simple to implement that they don't need a dedicated development team anymore. It seems that Bluetooth is cropping up in all sorts of CE devices. BT chips and control sets are becoming more and more standardized. For Ericsson, the hard work of developing tie-ins to their phone OS is already done. This could be a good sign, rather than a bad one, for Bluetooth in general.

I'm a little fuzzy on the relationship between Ericsson and SonyEricsson. Not sure if the former will impact the phones of the latter.

--
The facts have a liberal bias. --The Daily Show

Re:Might not be bad by romper · 2004-08-31 08:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm a little fuzzy on the relationship between Ericsson and SonyEricsson.
Also, what's the relationship of Sony to SonyEricsson? I've had a lot of frustration with Sony and Bluetooth support in the USA.
For example, I own a Sony TR laptop. Great machine, but you can't buy it *without* Bluetooth in Japan, and yet it's not even an option here in the States.
This kind of attitude doesn't seem limited to just Sony. I love Bluetooth and if given a choice between two devices will typically choose the one with Bluetooth (unless it's a toaster oven or something). =) Yet I don't know that I'm seeing much more support for it here. Is that destined to change?
(Trying to come back to the topic): Many comments here state that this might not be a bad thing and that SonyEricsson is just shifting its Bluetooth program to another division or whatever, but how is this going to be viewed by the consumer market as a whole?
Won't people just think Bluetooth is going away?

--
Right is wrong when left is right.
Re:Might not be bad by Threni · 2004-08-31 08:39 · Score: 1

> Won't people just think Bluetooth is going away?

It would be nice if the millions of people buying mobile phones, PDAs and other devices were thinking of the development department of one of the components within, but I'm sure you'll agree that that's a little unlikely, yes?
Re:Might not be bad by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:55 · Score: 0

I'm a little fuzzy on the relationship between Ericsson and SonyEricsson. Not sure if the former will impact the phones of the latter.

SonyEricsson is a joint venture between Sony and Ericsson. The idea was to combine Ericsson's expertise in mobile technology and Sony's know how and strong name in consumer electronics.

The more advanced/expensive Sony Ericsson phones are usually based on platforms/technology from Ericsson, while the cheapest phones may use platforms from or even be built by other vendors.

AC
Re:Might not be bad by shaka · 2004-08-31 08:58 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm a little fuzzy on the relationship between Ericsson and SonyEricsson.

Also, what's the relationship of Sony to SonyEricsson? I've had a lot of frustration with Sony and Bluetooth support in the USA.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications was established in 2001 by telecommunications leader Ericsson and consumer electronics powerhouse Sony Corporation. The company is equally owned by Ericsson and Sony.

--
:wq!
Re:Might not be bad by PhotoBoy · 2004-08-31 09:05 · Score: 2, Funny

I would guess this means the end of their "quirky" Bluetooth products like the Bluetooth remote controlled car (here) or the chat pen (here).
Re:Might not be bad by Hast · 2004-08-31 09:19 · Score: 2, Informative

If you notice those are developed by SonyEricsson. That is a different company (although AFAIK completely owned by Ericsson and Sony) and the people working at Ericsson have very little (or rather nothing) to do with people working at SE.

Eg, Ericsson make mobile hardware platforms, the stuff that is inside a mobile phone, and sell it to different phone companies. They then make a phone around that (and add stuff). SonyEricsson is one of those companies.

Ericsson also make and sell Bluetooth systems for integration into Bluetooth products. Other companies that does this are Widcomm and CSR. (CSR being the biggest IIRC.)

It is SonyEricsson that make the car and stuff. I recon they intend to keep on doing that.
Re:Might not be bad by Ohreally_factor · 2004-08-31 09:43 · Score: 2, Funny

love Bluetooth and if given a choice between two devices will typically choose the one with Bluetooth (unless it's a toaster oven or something). =)

802.11b/g is overkill for a toaster. BT is much more appropriate.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Might not be bad by dJCL · 2004-08-31 13:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It is not "quirky"! It's a great way to waste time at the office when the boss is at a meeting, and usefull in running the battery down on my cell phone. I want more toys that use an interface like this. Could you image a set of bluetooth remote control interfaces that would work with any toy? Linux geeks would be writing cool apps to control whole convoys of the things, and you would never have to worry about losing the remote again... Wait! This would be a good idea for TV's and other CE too... arg, brain off track...

Anyway... I like my CAR100.

There

Now back to your regularly scheduled OT discussion.

Anyway...

--
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
Re:Might not be bad by fyonn · 2004-08-31 21:33 · Score: 1

(unless it's a toaster oven or something)

what *is* a toaster oven? is it just what we brits would call a toaster (ie you pop 2 slices of proto-toast in and it toasts them)? or is it some form of fancy super toaster?

"ahh right, now just half an hour at 230 degrees in the fan toaster oven and my breakfast will be just about right"

also, while we're on the subject of american phrases I don't quite understand, can someone tell me what the "bases" are the americans try to reach when they refer to getting to "second base" etc. I know it's a baseball reference and all that, but I don't know what the actions are that constitute each base.

to wander vaguely back on topic, my last 2 phones have had bluetooth and it's bloody good. so much eaiser to send txt messages with a full size keyboard and syncing the address book with that on my computer keeps things nice and siomple, and makes it very easy to change phones "plug in new phone, turn on BT, find it, sync it, done).

dave
Re:Might not be bad by bla · 2004-09-01 03:46 · Score: 1

speaking as an american, frankly, i wish /more/ cellphones here had BT. my partner's does, but mine doesn't. blerg. maybe i'll get a sonyericsson next time.

re: toaster oven
a toaster oven is a mini-oven that can sit on your countertop and also can toast bread. it has usually 2-3 settings: bake, toast, and broil (optional...and just in case, broiling is the application of intense heat in the oven from one direction). it's more useful than a plain toaster, and it doesn't make things soggy like a microwave.
Re:Might not be bad by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-01 09:53 · Score: 0

SonyEricsson, as stated on the prior reply, is owned by both Ericsson and SOny. I do not work for Ericsson, however, my partner works for the corporate office here in America. SonyEricsson is simply a design house, Sony was brought in to design and manufacture the phones for Ericsson. Ericsson was manufacturing their own phones, however, they were plain ass ugly. So to become competitive against Nokia, they formed SonyEricsson and now you have a wide assortment of appealing phones for the general market making Ericsson more competitive in the handset arena. They already manufacture the majority of the radio equipment for TMobile, AT&T and Cingular tis is just another area of business.
Re:Might not be bad by attaboy · 2004-09-02 02:21 · Score: 1

I assume you're talking about the sexual connotations of the "bases", and not the actual baseball gameplay mechanics.

From Wikipedia:

"Rounding the Bases"
Rounding the bases is a group of slang terms dealing with sexual activities, borrowing terms from baseball. There are often variant definitions, but most criteria are similar.

First base - Kissing, especially "French" kissing.

Second base - Fondling or groping, especially of the breasts or genitals.

Third base - Depending on the speaker, either full nudity or a non-intercourse orgasm (especially when resulting from oral sex)

Home run (or "Hitting it out of the park", etc.; sometimes "Fourth Base") - Sexual intercourse.

Grand Slam - Usually sexual intercourse with: 1) oral sex, 2) vaginal sex, 3) anal sex and finally ejaculation on the face or breasts (or "4 run bomb", etc.)

I'd never heard of the Grand Slam one, personally. Among my friends growing up, second base meant breastage (either over or under clothing), and third base was any non-penetration sex, whether or not it resulted in an orgasm.

Of course, at the time in life where I still refered to sex using baseball terminology AND felt the need to tell my friends every detail about it, the need for any bases beyond 2 was probably unnecessary...

Here's another question: what do they call French Kissing in France? Just Kissing? ;-)

--
The facts have a liberal bias. --The Daily Show

Lame by aldeng · 2004-08-31 07:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I always like the idea of Bluetooth, though I'm afraid I saw this coming. I don't know why it was never adopted on a wider scale, but I certainly hope that other short distance wireless technologies (like WUSB) do take off. It would be nice to have a desktop with no wires except for power.

Re:Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 07:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bluetooth has really taken off in the mobile phone market; it is a must-have checklist item for high end phones.

Its very handy for hands-free, including headsets, and interaction with luxury cars.
Re:Lame by Chanc_Gorkon · 2004-08-31 09:07 · Score: 1

It has taken off....it's just that Sony-Ericsson will not be inventing their own chips for their phones any more. This is a good thing.

--
Gorkman
Re:Lame by Grayden · 2004-08-31 09:07 · Score: 1, Informative

You can already do that. Get an iMac with a Bluetooth module in it and buy the Bluetooth keyboard and mouse. To connect your speakers and printer, get an AirPort Express. The AirPort Express also doubles (or would that be "triples") as an 802.11 basestation so you don't need a network cable either.

--
Shades of Grayden
Re:Lame by waynelorentz · 2004-08-31 16:57 · Score: 1

It would be nice to have a desktop with no wires except for power.

That's essentially what my wife does. She has an iBook that only leaves her desk when she goes to the couch. At the desk she uses a bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

With our computers, accessories, cell phones, and Palm Pilots (well, a Clie) we have seven Bluetooth devices in the house. My wife hates messy wires. She wishes more things were Bluetooth.

--
World's tallest building rises in the desert

Few will miss it... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · 2004-08-31 07:50 · Score: 1, Informative

Between 802.11 and the upcoming Zigbee stuff, it won't be missed by many.

--
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...

Re:Few will miss it... by Maxon · 2004-08-31 08:21 · Score: 2, Informative

802.15.4 (the protocol Zigbee is based on) does not have enough bandwidth or the QoS to perform voice communications the way Bluetooth does.
Re:Few will miss it... by Maxon · 2004-08-31 08:27 · Score: 4, Informative

Oops, hit submit too early... To finish my thoughts..

Zigbee (802.15.4) was designed for long battery life time and simple design. It achieves this long battery life goal with keep the receivers off most of the time. Depending upon configuration and the accuracy of you're timers, you're receiver might only be on a few milliseconds every couple of minutes. Not good for low latency or high bandwidth, but works wonders for making batteries last a year or more.

Bluetooth is about speed and QoS. Eats much more power than Zigbee, and only supports 7 devices in a Piconet. Zigbee is designed to support thousands of devices in a network.

Bluetooth and Zigbee are complementary technologies, not competitive. Even the IEEE says so (Bluetooth is on top of 802.15.1).

(An early 802.15.4 adopter)
Re:Few will miss it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 14:16 · Score: 0

Sorry my friend, but your some of your statments about Bluetooth are incorrect. I've developed several Bluetooth applications for the Mac and the PC. Here's a link to my Bluetooth controled remote control plaform using National Instruments hardware.

Bluetooth is all about low power consumption, and reliable serial communications. It was origninally developed to simply replace the standard serial interface. It is meant to be used as a replacement litterally only for the cable. The core bluetooth specification does not introduce any new technologies, but simply replaces old technologies with a wireless aspect.

Now there are some profiles that do some rediculous things over bluetooth (like the internet gateway profile, or piconet... ludicrous). Bluetooth was never meant to be a networking device... it was meant to standardize wireless mice, and basic serial devices. The big deal with bluetooth is its fundamental specification that has a great way to add profiles to do whatever you like.

Bluetooth has nothing to do with speed. The specification maxes out at like 926K/s (I might be a little off). That's in a clean room, with absolutely no interferance.

There are two major types of bluetooth running modes. 100mW and ~10mW. That is tiny compared to 802.11b. Bluetooth devices are specifically design to be low power consumption, and can provide states of next to no power consumption.

Of course Bluetooth is "on top of" Zigbee". There are so many stardarized profiles for bluetooth, why would anyone go through and remake those? More than likely, (though I can't say for certain), Zigbee will be design specifically to be backwards compatible with or have a "bluetooth" emulation mode so we can keep using all those bluetooth devices that are out! And guess what, when Zigbee is replaced, I bet whatever comes out after that will too!

This is a general reminder, not everything you read is true. Please research first!
Re:Few will miss it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 20:36 · Score: 0

The Fine Thing with bluetooth is how it works without you manually initiating things, like when I walk by my PC and get my calender and address book updated.

Defuglify by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 07:50 · Score: 0

Aaah, much better.

Bluetooth going away? by drewzhrodague · 2004-08-31 07:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Perhaps if we're lucky, Bluetooth will go away.

There's always Better, Cheaper, Faster. Didn't someone mention something about soft-modem technology applied to radios?

--
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.

Re:Bluetooth going away? by infra-red · 2004-08-31 08:01 · Score: 2

Yes, if we wait long enough, there is always a better version of whatever coming along. Thats why I'm waiting for the Uberium CPU to upgrade my 386, I know it will be out sometime.

I would be very disappointed if Bluetooth went away. I just got a new laptop, with Bluetooth, synced up my Palm via Bluetooth (no more cradle needed). I'm getting a new Cell phone, and you guessed it, I want it with BlueTooth.

Living in Ontario, our options for BT enabled phones is either Rogers or Fido. Rogers is just making the switch to GSM (well, have been for a while, but not quite complete yet), and Fido only really exists in Cities with populations over 600000. Since I have yet to find a BT enabled phone on any other provider (it seems BT and GSM are tied at the hip), I'm switching networks in a month to get a GSM w/ BT phone.

Of course there will be better ways of doing this in the future, but it works for what it does, which is all that I ask of it.
Re:Bluetooth going away? by Smitty825 · 2004-08-31 08:04 · Score: 4, Informative

The CDMA providers/phone manufactures are just getting a clue about Bluetooth. In the US, Verizon should be selling a Bluetooth Motorola phone. Sprint has sold a Bluetooth Sony Ericsson phone (with lots of BT bugs), and Nokia has announced a CDMA flip-phone with bluetooth...

--

Doh!
Re:Bluetooth going away? by dave420 · 2004-08-31 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's pretty funny. Do you actually know about bluetooth? It's a very small, very cheap, very low-power radio technology for low-bandwidth data. It's not meant to be a 100ft-range-gigabit-ethernet-multimedia-streaming technology, but a useful replacement for low-bandwidth cabling. Headsets, keyboards, mice, microphones, etc. It does something other wireless chipsets don't, and nothing out there at the moment (or the forseeable future) can replace it.
Here's a nice scene: You're on your PDA, and not in a wireless hotspot. You want to check your mails, so you connect to your ISP using your phone which is in your pocket. You don't have to reach for anything - the two communicate, and you instantly have GPRS to your PDA. Or, another cool scene: At work, listening to music, and you want to check your voicemails quickly. Dial the answerphone on your phone (or from your computer), and listen to the messages over your headphones, nicely mixed with some quiet music from itunes or whatever, via bluetooth. Even better: send and receive text messages from your desktop/pda/notebook using a real keyboard. The list goes on.
People always pipe up and say something like "waah waah bluetooth waah crap waah WUSB is miles better waah waah", when they've blatantly misunderstood the purpose of the technology, and haven't realised just how useful it is.
Are you American? :)
Re:Bluetooth going away? by CmdrGravy · 2004-08-31 09:02 · Score: 1

How on earth is this flamebait ?

Moderator explain thyself !
Re:Bluetooth going away? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 09:26 · Score: 0

Cheap crack. That's the only explanation I can think of.
The moderators have been smoking lots of it lately.
Re:Bluetooth going away? by Ohreally_factor · 2004-08-31 09:53 · Score: 1

Obviously because he spelled "mail" as "mails". The mod only wanted to stop him before he used "maths" in place of "math".

=) ---clue for the humor impaired

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

Not really... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 07:50 · Score: 0

Not really it's just a cellphone supplier. Get plenty of use outa my bluetooth mouse & keyboard between multiple PCs allthough having a bluetooth phone is eaisier to transfer stuff to the phone than a lame ira port.

Surely a rhetorical question.... by general_re · 2004-08-31 07:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Considering SonyEricsson is a major supporter of Bluetooth technology, will this have a huge impact on its adoption?"

Ummm....yes? Just a guess, but what the hell...

--
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.

Adoption. by commo1 · 2004-08-31 07:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

No effect at all. JVC invented the VHS standard, it's small market share was not signifigant in it's adoption. Phillips invented the redbook audio CD, it's influence is miniscule today, or even 15 years ago.

Bluetooth not "adopting" by dmccarty · 2004-08-31 07:50 · Score: 0, Troll

[...] will this have a huge impact on its adoption?

What adoption? When was the last time you used a Bluetooth-enabled device to do anything useful?

--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)

Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 07:55 · Score: 0

I use the bluetooth on my phone to exchange contacts, to sync up with my desktop calendar and I also use it to send naked pictures of myself to unsuspecting patrons while riding the subway each morning.

;)
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by mccalli · 2004-08-31 07:56 · Score: 5, Informative

When was the last time you used a Bluetooth-enabled device to do anything useful?
Well, admittedly typing this reply on a bluetooth keyboard might not count as useful, so I'll have to go for an hour ago when I used it transfer photos. Before that I'd have to stretch a whole two hours ago when I used the built-in bluetooth on this Powerbook to communicate with a bluetooth mobile in order to send an SMS. And before that, it would be about five hours ago when I synchronised my address books. Without taking the phone out of my pocket.
Enough yet? Or shall I cast my memory as far back as this morning to dig out some more usage?
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by RapmasterT · 2004-08-31 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative

What adoption? When was the last time you used a Bluetooth-enabled device to do anything useful?

Last time? I'd guess about 5 minutes ago.

1. I use a bluetooth connection to my laptop to edit my cell phone contact list with a real keyboard.

2. I use a bluetooth headset to talk on my cell phone without a wire catching on everything.

3. I have a bluetooth GPS unit that I use map routing with my pocketpc.

4. I have a bluetooth router on my home network to provide LAN access to my pocketpc (WiFi drains the battery in about 1.5 hours, bluetooth in 5.5).

Too many people make the mistake of thinking that since THEY don't use a technology, nobody does. Bluetooth is not only gaining wide acceptance, but it's very useful as well. Short range, low power consumption is a killer combination for many many uses.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by MrDalliard · 2004-08-31 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative

What adoption? When was the last time you used a Bluetooth-enabled device to do anything useful?
...like using my Bluetooth enabled mobile with my PB G4 to pick up e-mail and web-browse ?
Or using a Bluetooth headset in conjunction with my phone? (As it's illegal to drive in the UK whilst holding/operating a phone in your hand ?)
I'd say that was useful.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Enry · 2004-08-31 08:02 · Score: 3, Informative

Sheesh. Just as I get my Mac, Linux box, and Palm T3 talking bluetooth wirelessly to my GSM phone.

Bluetooth = 802.11 but low cost, low power, low bandwidth.

I can control what devices connect to my BT devices. I can control what services on each device I want to offer. I can write SMS (text messages) from my PDA and have the phone send them.

No nearby 802.11 hotspot? No problem, go data through the phone.

I can sync the contacts on my laptop with those on my phone with those on my PDA. No more having different contacts all over the place.

There's various BT apps for PalmOS that allow you to have a small whiteboard/chat over BT. Great for meetings.

All without a wire. Not one is needed for communicating.

BT is currently languishing because Windows doesn't really support it. Linux has okay support (still needs some help) but Macs and embedded devices are doing pretty good with it.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by swb · 2004-08-31 08:04 · Score: 1

I couldn't even get a Bluetooth enabled phone from Verizon until about 2 months ago. My year old laptop doesn't have support, so I'd have to add bluetooth to it.

I'd consider it useful if I could make modem calls from my laptop via my wireless phone (whether they're 3G or 56k), and if someone would cut through the shiite and make it trivial to sync my contacts list with my phone.

I spent the extra money on a cable and software for my current T730 from motorola -- shit software, no dialup without special service, yuck.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Raptor+CK · 2004-08-31 08:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, it's sorta useful.

See, Apple makes nice hardware.

Then they screw up and put the USB ports on the left side of the Powerbook, while I'm right-handed, and like having an external mouse.

Not one to want an extra cord snaked all the way around the back ot my laptop, I took advantage of the built-in Bluetooth module and got a Bluetooth mouse.

If pointing and clicking comfortably without dealing with an external wireless transceiver is useful, then I've got your argument.

At the very least, it's kinda cool.

--
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by shaka · 2004-08-31 08:11 · Score: 1

Apart from all the very nice syncing of address books between phone, PDA and computer (which I'm very suprised not everyone is doing today, I'd thought that to be a major feature like 5 years ago) I think that using your Sony Ericsson T6[1,3]0 to control your iTunes remotely is pretty useful. And chicks dig it, too. ;)

--
:wq!
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Mateito · 2004-08-31 08:11 · Score: 2, Funny

When was the last time you used a Bluetooth-enabled device to do anything useful?
Don't worry, there will be a huge outcry from brits so socially inept they need bluetooth to get laid on trains that somebody will step forward and support it.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by davinciII · 2004-08-31 08:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Agreed. I love my bluetooth phone.

I love my bluetooth headset. My phone can be in my armrest in the car, and I can dial and answer by the press of a button -- with no wires.

Or if I'm on a conference call and need others to hear, I can simply make the connection to my laptop and use its microphone and speakers for my phone.

Or all of the above in the parent post.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by sg3000 · 2004-08-31 08:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

> What adoption? When was the last time you used a Bluetooth-
> enabled device to do anything useful?

Well, I clicked on "Reply to This" using my Bluetooth mouse connected to my PowerBook.

But it's arguable whether posting to Slashdot qualifies as "useful"

--
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by NanoGator · 2004-08-31 08:18 · Score: 2, Funny

"What adoption? When was the last time you used a Bluetooth-enabled device to do anything useful?"

I think somebody just discovered the world's population is greater than himself.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by raikje · 2004-08-31 08:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like my bluetooth phone precisely because I don't sync it very often, and I don't transfer photos very often. But when I do, it takes a couple of clicks and it's done. Never again will I spend hours hunting for a data cable, that in fact I've lent to a friend.

(typed on my bluetooth keyboard)
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by kiscica · 2004-08-31 08:30 · Score: 1

As I sit here in a restaurant awaiting a friend, I am writing this (OK, don't know if that counts as doing "something useful" :-) on a Dell Axim PDA connected to the net via my cell phone, which is 3 feet away from me, in my field bag. The two gadgets are communicating by Bluetooth.

I found my way here using GPS navigation software on this same PDA. When I get into my car I merely slip the PDA into its cradle. The GPS unit is hidden in the back of my car. There's no need to fiddle with cables: the GPS and PDA communicate by Bluetooth.

I don't have a Bluetooth headset yet, but I intend to get one as soon as the prices come down on the new stereo ones. I don't have an iPod, but my Axim with its 1GB flash card makes a fair substitute (and plays oggs too). It will be nice to keep the Axim (with the screen off to save power) safe and sound in my field bag when I'm biking, while I listen on the Bluetooth headset. And if a call comes in on my Bluetooth phone, I will be able to take it on the same headset. (Anyone have any recommendations for a headset that can handle this?)

When I get home I will sync my PDA to my PC via Bluetooth, since I'll probably use it a bit before I stick it in its charging cradle overnight. I could use WiFi, but it sucks the battery on my Axim, so I don't enable it unless I need it. Bluetooth works fine for syncing.

Oh, and my PC itself has a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.

Anyway, my point is, Bluetooth is already damn useful.

Kiscica
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:38 · Score: 0

k lets rephrase that.. when was the lastime you used bluetooth for anything ON A PC

yeah thats right. PC's set the trends. thats why we use TCP/IP instead of appletalk.

note im not the same as the parent of your post, but i find blue tooth as useless to me and my surroundings (i have worked in computer stores and now an IT department with 802.11g deployed even) as the old LS120 drives. its like ok fine, bluetooh is maybe useful for some things (ala LS120) but if its not in every single or at least a majority of PC's, whats the fsckign point?
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by ElGuapoGolf · 2004-08-31 08:43 · Score: 1

I couldn't even get a Bluetooth enabled phone from Verizon until about 2 months ago.

That's the problem then, isn't it? From all the reports I've seen, Verizon has crippled the BT implementation on the Motorola to only support the handsfree stuff.

To contrast, I have a BT enabled cellphone from Cingular. Cingular doesn't cripple their phones (well, not the BT at least). It talks to my palm, and I can dial the internet with it, no problem. I use Cingular as my ISP, and it doesn't cost me anything (except minutes). I can send my palm's phonebook to my phone, and my computer's phonebook to either. It just works.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by mccalli · 2004-08-31 08:46 · Score: 1

yeah thats right. PC's set the trends. thats why we use TCP/IP instead of appletalk.
You are joking, right? PCs didn't have TCP/IP for absolutely ages, and Microsoft initially snubbed it. But people coming out of University who were used to their academic networks wanted it. Only when Trumpet Winsock started making its presence felt did Microsoft finally follow the UNIX world (by using the BSD code) and get its net access together.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Asprin · 2004-08-31 08:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
Ok, you seem to know your way around, so can I bug you with some honest questions for which I can never seem to find an answer?
1. Are the data transmissions are encrypted in any way?
2. How do you select which device you are exchanging data with?
3. Can you limit which devices can and cannot communicate with each other to prevent the nosy neighbors from listening in?
4. Can you limit which devices can *see* each other to prevent the nosy neighbors from even knowing you have a bluetooth device?
5. How do you enter a secret access password into a headset?
Thanks!
--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by mccalli · 2004-08-31 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative
1. Are the data transmissions are encrypted in any way?
  Yes, they are. Not certain of the standard though, so I don't know how difficult it is to brute force.
2. How do you select which device you are exchanging data with?
  Interface depends on device, but normally you browse for them - a list is presented, and each device is named. Of course, you have to rely on the user having set the name to something more useful than "Nokia 3650" so you can identify which Nokia 3650...
3. Can you limit which devices can and cannot communicate with each other to prevent the nosy neighbors from listening in?
  Yes, you can specify that devices need to a passkey to pair with each other. The neighbours don't get the key.
4. Can you limit which devices can and cannot communicate with each other to prevent the nosy neighbors from listening in?
  Yes - you put your device in non-discoverable mode (similar to not broadcasting the SSID of a wireless network)
5. How do you enter a secret access password into a headset?
  Or, indeed, a mouse as I had to set up for this machine. The answer is that the passkey is fixed on such devices, but they're also tied in with a hardware id (analogous to a MAC address). Thus another, similar headset with the same passkey still wouldn't successfully pair with your device - different hardware id
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by CmdrGravy · 2004-08-31 09:06 · Score: 1

About 20 minutes ago when I added a new contact to Evolution and it automatically, using Bluetooth, synched with my phone and added the contact to the phones address book.

The phone is in my coat pocket out in the hall and not having to mess about plugging in cables or lining up IR devices is great.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by CmdrGravy · 2004-08-31 09:15 · Score: 1
I am not a bluetooth expert but here are my answers
1. Bluetooth can support encryption so it depends on whether or not you have bought ( or can find ) a device which implements it.
2. Your device should tell you about any other devices in the area it can exchange stuff with and you choose the one you want to talk to. This is usually password protected so unless you know the password you can't exchange anything.
3. Yes I think you can do this
4. And you can do this as well I believe
5. Don't know because I don't have a headset - maybe the password is uniquely set at manufacture time
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by plover · 2004-08-31 09:42 · Score: 1

The Bluetooth phone from Verizon (a friend has one) isn't so much "crippled" as it is "unfinished." The rest of us in our little lunch group have had Bluetooth phones, PDAs, laptops, and even cars for quite some time now. Even I finally got a Bluetooth phone when AT&T finally expanded their GSM coverage to more than a one-mile circle around downtown. The "Verizon guy" has been waiting and waiting for the Motorola Bluetooth CDMA phone, which was finally released to Verizon customers just last month.
Boy, was he disappointed when we all sat down and discovered his phone and found that it offered only networking service, and could not use any other services except a headset.
However, it turns out Verizon has simply disabled the rest of the functionality (OBEX and others) because of bugs in the phone's implementation, not because of any vast conspiracy. As they fix the bugs, they've promised to make new versions of the phone's firmware available for free at any Verizon store.

--
John
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by swb · 2004-08-31 09:55 · Score: 1

However, it turns out Verizon has simply disabled the rest of the functionality (OBEX and others) because of bugs in the phone's implementation, not because of any vast conspiracy. As they fix the bugs, they've promised to make new versions of the phone's firmware available for free at any Verizon store.

If it's not a conspiracy, why can't I just download the fscking firmware on my PC from Verizon's web site and then flash my own phone?

Unlike you, I *do* believe that there's at least something of a conspiracy to lock users out of their phones, otherwise why wouldn't I just be able to USB my phone to my PC and copy pictures, ringtones, edit the directory, etc? I think Verizon at minimum has a desire to ensure that anything to do with the phone, even if it doesn't involve the cellular network, is a value-added service that you have to pay for. I would have spent the extra money on a camera phone if I could download my pictures, but no -- only sending through the cell net.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by staticdaze · 2004-08-31 10:18 · Score: 1

Are the data transmissions are encrypted in any way?

Yes they are, in two ways.

1) Frequency hopping. The channel sequence is computed by using both the Bluetooth device address and its clock. Bluetooth devices change channels about 1600 times per second, with 79 channels to choose from.

2) The algorithm for link encryption and authentication is called SAFER+. This generates 128-bit ciphers.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by foo+fighter · 2004-08-31 10:56 · Score: 1

Could you please supply the make and model of the bluetooth router? How's your experience with it?

I'm a very interested in such a device.

--
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by foo+fighter · 2004-08-31 10:59 · Score: 1
1. Are the data transmissions are encrypted in any way?
  
  Yes, they are. Not certain of the standard though, so I don't know how difficult it is to brute force.
Also, bluetooth uses frequency hopping making it even more difficult to intercept a transmission.
--
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by owlstead · 2004-08-31 12:06 · Score: 1

Are the data transmissions are encrypted in any way?

Yes, they are. Not certain of the standard though, so I don't know how difficult it is to brute force
Doesn't make too much difference though, since there are a lot of flawed products out there. Especially Nokia does not seem to get it right most of the time. If the protocol is implemented incorrectly or if the device has bugs, the key size does not matter much.

Wireless products are almost never airtight :)
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by RapmasterT · 2004-08-31 12:46 · Score: 1

Sure thing: http://www.billionton.com/website/product/index.as p?sid=883999341&code=APBTC1G&m=1 I picked it up off eBay for about $70. search for "bluetooth router" and you'll pick up a whole page of them. My experience is mixed. By default it REQUIRES configuration through a non-paired bluetooth connection. My laptop only allowed pin-paired network connections. So I had to use the browser in my iPaq to configure it. But the iPaq browser doesn't have a Java VM, so I couldn't configure it. Then after searching for a VM, I discovered that there was one on the CD that came with the iPaq. Finally got it configured and both my laptop and iPaq paired with it nicely. It was kind of a tedious and ciruitous process though. It's actually a surprisingly sophisticated little device: DHCP, NAT, Bridge or router mode.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by itsthebin · 2004-08-31 15:45 · Score: 0

Bluetooth is excellent for you own little personal area network. apart from all the other uses listed so far I use my bluetooth enabled phone to start and control winamp on my computer. bemused is the program I use to do this ( find it at sourceforge ), and if you want to be tricky with your next power point presentation you can control that too with your bluetooth enabled phone. using a symbian IM client (agile messenger ) I also connect via bluetooth to my desktop then onwards to the outside world... I bought my phone because it had bluetooth! the only other recommendations with the phone now would be that it has EDGE and is running symbianOS.

--
...I obey the laws of physics....
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by thecombatwombat · 2004-08-31 21:37 · Score: 1

What size/model is your powerbook?

My 1.25 15 inch has a usb port on both sides, it's handy.
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 23:50 · Score: 0

So how do Americans get laid on trains?
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by Raptor+CK · 2004-09-01 03:10 · Score: 1

867 Aluminum 12".

I know *why* it's not there, but back in the old days, you'd have ports on the back of a system, so it didn't matter which hand you used for a pointing device.

This was all especially funny when the newer iBooks came out. We bought one, and it came with the Apple Optical mouse, complete with 12-inch cable. And the USB port on the left.

Now *that* sucked for righties. :)

--
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
Re:Bluetooth not "adopting" by uradu · 2004-09-01 05:36 · Score: 1

> thats why we use TCP/IP instead of appletalk

Ethernet killed AppleTalk most likely, not PCs. From what I've read, the 576 byte or so AppleTalk packet size wastes most of a 1500 byte Ethernet frame, making the protocol very inefficient over Ethernet. They could have fixed it, but since Apple has been involved with TCP/IP for a long time as well, it begged the question why. It just forces network admins to maintain another protocol, and from a PR perspective that would be a negative against Apples.

Ericsson not REALLY pulling out... by BTWR · 2004-08-31 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the article:

Further advancements in Bluetooth technology will be made by the Special Interest Group, which consists of a number of companies with ties to the technology. Ericsson will remain a part of that group.

So it seems that Ericsson is perhaps just diverting their bluetooth division to one of it's subsidiaries/subdivisions. After all, SonyEricsson is one of the main Bluetooth supporters. This may just be overpanic...

Re:Ericsson not REALLY pulling out... by transient · 2004-08-31 08:45 · Score: 1

Bluetooth had already been spun off. There's no diversion; they're shutting it down.

--

irb(main):001:0>
Re:Ericsson not REALLY pulling out... by FrankHaynes · 2004-08-31 08:52 · Score: 1

This may just be overpanic...

Don't be silly! Slashdotters never over-react, panic, or fly off the handle in childish tantrums because they can't have a particular toy. What planet are you from???

--
slashdot: A failed experiment.

Bluetooth is not dying (ignore Netcraft) by plover · 2004-08-31 07:51 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, according to both of the articles it's the research team that created Bluetooth, and the technologies around it. They are not the group that is responsible for incorporating Bluetooth into the other products.

It could be as simple as "the standard has been set, the goals have been accomplished, move on to new things." Since Ericsson is no longer the sole creative force behind Bluetooth, it makes financial sense to not keep 125 people employed to argue one seat on the Bluetooth Special Interest Group.

It's too bad for Bluetooth in that I think Ericsson had some brilliant visionaries doing this work, and that those people are no longer focused on Bluetooth. However, they're being incorporated into other units which can only help them overall.

It's not good news, it's not bad news. It's just news. The timing is interesting as I see Bluetooth now on the cusp of adoption by every cell phone maker for their mid- and possibly even low-end phones.

( And Michael, wi-fi is not necessarily a good replacement for Bluetooth. The higher power requirements for wi-fi mean shorter battery life, which is death for cell phones. And Bluetooth incorporates discovery protocols which are all geared toward personal networking, not internet networking. I think wi-fi would be a really chatty way to accomplish those goals, again at the expense of battery life. )

--
John

So much for Toothing by Archangel+Michael · 2004-08-31 07:51 · Score: 4, Funny

http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,62687,00 .html

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Re:So much for Toothing by Jakhel · 2004-08-31 08:34 · Score: 1

DAMNIT!! Europe always gets the best cell phone stuff! :(
Re:So much for Toothing by Hast · 2004-08-31 10:59 · Score: 1

No, Japan does. But the US is pretty much last on the list.

They didn't have much BT stuff in Japan though. Java didn't seem like a big push neither. Good to know that we're beginning to catch up and surpass in at least some areas.

Ericsson discriminates against F-A-T by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 07:51 · Score: 0

These people just make awful cell phones -- why are the buttons always so small? With so many of the IT people experiencing a sizeable girth, we need cellphones with FAT numeric keys to match our guts.

I doubt it... by Philosinfinity · 2004-08-31 07:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

I doubt this will affect bluetooth's ability to enter the mainstream. In fact, I never quite understood the need for bluetooth in your cellphone (aside from cellphone PDA type devices). Wireless headphones are nice, but is this really what I want to use bluetooth for?

Rather, I think that the PC perhipheral market is what will ultimately drive bluetooth. Think about it. Truely wireless keyboards, mice, modems, printers, etc. are so beneficial for end users. Bluetooth's future is in "untangling the PC" not the convienence of wireless cell phone headsets and small PC to cellphone data transfers.

Re:I doubt it... by kev0153 · 2004-08-31 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative

I use my bluetooth enabled phone to synch my address books. It is so much easier typing contact info on a real keyboard and then moving it to the phone. I also use my phone as a modem. I can establish a wireless connection between my GPRS/Bluetooh enabled phone and my Powerbook and surf the internet. Not at any blazing speeds (yet) but as long as I can get a GPRS signal I have an internet connection at my disposal.
Re:I doubt it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:05 · Score: 0

You obviously never got your head yanked by a wired headphone on a cell phone getting caught on something.

BT is completely needed for cell phones for:
a) headset
b) use as wireless modem to connect laptop to net
c) transfer files/contact/apps/etc. from PC to phone

Also, it's needed for stereo headset for portable players.

Once you get rid of the wire, it is very hard to go back.

It's a shame the adooption is so slow. But part of that is due to the wi-fi interference isues in version 1.1. This is solved 1.2, but the devices that have that are trickling on the market.
Re:I doubt it... by plover · 2004-08-31 08:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

How about a wireless speakerphone in your car? With a Bluetooth handsfree kit, you can just hop in your car and go. Your car and your phone recognize each other as you turn on the ignition, and your car says "I'm going to be your headset now."
It's been discussed having Bluetooth "silencers" installed at movie theatres, concert venues, and restaurants. They'd be a simple Bluetooth device that would request your phone switch to a silent profile for the next hour or two. If you were an anti-social jerk, you could turn such a thing off. But as we know from lots of experience, most people won't be bothered to change their default settings. It's not a complete solution to the problem of cell phone ringers in auditoriums, but every phone call silenced makes for a more pleasant experience for all.
The nice thing is that all of the features you mention with respect to PC usage can quite peacably coexist with the cell phone usage. Both ends can drive the market simultaneously, and as more crossover functionality becomes possible, consumer demand will drive more adoption. We're already seeing this with digital camera phones exchanging pictures with PCs. And laptops are able to use the Bluetooth equipped phones for network access.
Bluetooth was the sole reason I purchased a T637 phone earlier this summer. I really didn't care about the camera (crappy quality pictures) nor about the Java in the phone. I wanted my Palm Tungsten to be able get to the internet occasionally, and I now have that. But I also have the option to have a speaker kit in my car (I suppose this will wait 'til Christmas), to exchange address and phone data with my desktop, and opens up all sorts of possibilities.

--
John
Re:I doubt it... by dave420 · 2004-08-31 08:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

You've missed the point here, somewhat. Bluetooth isn't used for high-bandwidth purposes, as that's not what it's designed for. It's designed to be tiny, cheap and low-power. You can include it in a device for a buck or two, which is a lot cheaper than any other wireless I can think of (except IrDA, of course ;)).
It's used to sync small amounts of data, send short messages, sporadic control IO (keyboards/etc), voice streams, etc. It's used to link PDAs/PCs/notebooks to cellphones for GPRS/G3 internet access, and (as you said) headsets (which is missing the bigger picture - we're talking about any audio in/out device, computer speakers/mics included), not forgetting fax/printing services.
It's most definitely not going anywhere, and its adoption will increase rapidly, especially when Windows gets its act together and has a decent BT stack. WIDCOMM is cool, but it looks like crap and doesn't work with everything. The macs have BT down.
Just because you can't see a use for it, doesn't mean it's useless and should go away. I can't think of a good reason to own a mass spectrometer or a soldering iron, but that doesn't mean they're useless and should be disposed of immediately.
Re:I doubt it... by charliekowalchuk · 2004-08-31 09:27 · Score: 1

I bet you said the same thing about TV remotes when they first came out, before you went out and bought one.

I suppose you don't see the need to have bluetooth on a cell phone, because your just sittin happy with paying 99 cents a jingle and having to pay extra fees per month just to get that picture off your cell phone, to your computer.

Let me ask you this? Do you see the need for IrDA? If the answers no, I don't want to talk to you, and if the answers yes, then understanding the usefulness of Bluetooth can't be to far away.
Re:I doubt it... by owlstead · 2004-08-31 12:39 · Score: 1

Bluetooth in your cellphone as many other uses. To name a few: synchronization between different devices, providing GPRS/UMTS services to your PDA and Laptop (i've been internetting many miles in a dutch train), using hardware without proprietary connector or in-line-of-sight infrared (keyboards), printing contact cards, etc. . Just looking at all the Bluetooth profiles of my cheapo bluetooth USB key/stick/whatever makes my head spin. Did I mention profiles? Application layer support!!! Jay.

Bluetooth has, by the way, a max data transfer rate of 721 Mbit/sec, which makes it pretty useless for printers, modems etc. Even USB 1.1 should get up to about 11 Mbit/sec, and USB 2.0 (full speed) trounces it. So Bluetooth, even in its next incarnations, won't untangle too much yet.
Re:I doubt it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 18:46 · Score: 0

721 Kbit...
Re:I doubt it... by owlstead · 2004-08-31 22:09 · Score: 1

Yes, that was a typo. I corrected it in another post, but even previewing my comments does not always work, especially when I'm overly tired. Thanks for correcting it anyway.

Depends on the others by DARKFORCE123 · 2004-08-31 07:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

Ericsson was definitely on top of getting Bluetooth to its phones first. If Nokia, Motorola , and Samsung follow suit, then Bluetooth will be history.
Frankly I don't know that many people who use bluetooth on their phones except for the headsets.
Besides using Bluetooth for headsets, I have not heard anyone talk about other cool things to do with it. Trading phone contacts around or transferring files can be done with other technologies already present in the cellphone. Bluetooth has to have some other applications cooler than that if it expects to survive.

Re:Depends on the others by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 09:12 · Score: 0

The coolest app I saw for it was to connect to a laptop. So the 3G cell phone could be an access point for the laptop while the two were within a few meters of one another. I suppose other technologies could accomplish this, but I wonder if the power consumption would be as low.
Re:Depends on the others by bigt_littleodd · 2004-08-31 13:38 · Score: 1

I don't think it will be history any time soon!
Bluetooth is wonderful! I originally wanted a cell phone with BT so that I wouldn't have to type all my contacts a new phone (AGAIN!), so I got a SonyEriccson T68i and a D-link Bluetooth USB nubbie. Once you do this, you will refuse to either type your contacts or connect via cable ever again.
Later, I got rid of the T68i (not because of the phone, but because of lousy AT&T service). I replaced it with a Nokia 6600 (also BT).
Then I found Salling Clicker, which is quite possibly the coolest thing to ever happen to a cell phone since free long distance. I can control PowerPoint, Keynote, DVDplayer, Mail and iTunes with my phone. The slickest thing about Salling Clicker is that I can have the phone in my pocket, get up and leave the room, and iTunes pauses. When I come back into range, iTunes begins playing again.
We recently bought an Acura TL for my wife, which also has Bluetooth. We have both of our phones paired to it, and to make or receive calls all we have to do is push a button on the steering wheel, the stereo mutes, and the car initiates the phone to dial numbers from a phonebook.
I do sound like a fanboy for Bluetooth, because I am one!

--
Let's play Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll be Pestilence.

Uh, security? by MerryGoByeBye · 2004-08-31 07:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So lessee... it's possible to hack a bluetooth phone from over a mile away so that it can be used without the owner actually ever even knowing about it and people are surprised the protocol's being dropped?

Re:Uh, security? by BlueCup · 2004-08-31 08:11 · Score: 1

Oh come on mods, I know that this person is attacking something some people hold near and dear, but it's not as if he lied. There are some security concerns My guess is Ericsson just couldn't find a long term way to battle these problems, and felt it was best to search for something new and better. The parent isn't flaming, the parent is insightful.

--
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
Re:Uh, security? by Hast · 2004-08-31 11:01 · Score: 1

That is because of bugs in the implementations.

You don't scrap the internet because Microsoft has put out some buggy products, do you?

Zigbee! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 07:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Move over Bluetooth, behold the era of Zigbee!

Re:Zigbee! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:16 · Score: 0

Move over Bluetooth, behold the era of Zigbee!
That's for monitoring and control products, dipshit.
Re:Zigbee! by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-08-31 21:40 · Score: 1

Zigbee is a lower bandwidth, lower power consumption system to bluetooth. i dont see it as a "replacement" for bluetooth, but a complimentary tech, for things such as remote controls, etc.

--
Have a nice day!

Who licenses bluetooth? by kzinti · 2004-08-31 07:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

From the article: Ericsson is pulling the plug on its technology licensing unit, the wholly-owned subsidiary which invented Bluetooth wireless technology and became the driving force behind the company's Bluetooth initiative.... Ericsson also won't pursue new chip customers for Bluetooth technology licensing.

So was Ericsson, as the inventor of Bluetooth, the only licensing authority, or has it granted/sold that authority to others?

Re:Who licenses bluetooth? by Hast · 2004-08-31 11:05 · Score: 1

If your question is if only Ericsson made Bluetooth chips then the answer is no.

The big actors on the market are CSR and Widcomm. Widcomm make the chips you often find in USB dongles AFAIK. I do however believe that CSR is the biggest one.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread. This doesn't mean that Bluetooth is on the way out. It's quite the opposite, it means that Bluetooth is now considered standard.

(Not yet in the US though.)

Re:Bluetooth is dead by erick99 · 2004-08-31 07:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bluetooth is one of the those "solutions in search of a problem." It's a cool idea but not enough people actually buy things because it has bluetooth. The short range may have something to do with it. It's sort of an orphan technology for lack of a better term?

Cheers,

Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Impact by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 07:55 · Score: 0

will this have a huge impact on its adoption?

Yes.

That was easy. The topic is over. Next.

Outdated? by st3v · 2004-08-31 07:56 · Score: 1

Could they be scrapping bluetooth because it is getting outdated? Since the future phones will be recording video and having other features, maybe bluetooth is too slow to transfer those things to a laptop or other phone. WiFi is much faster with a greater range; maybe they are thinking to use it instead.

Re:Outdated? by Hast · 2004-08-31 11:12 · Score: 1

First off, they are not scrapping it.

Second, WiFi is not a replacement for BT. The primary reason for that is if you test WiFi products for Palm sized products (SD cards) you will find that they are a lot slower than their PC Card versions. The reason naturally being that it kills batteries. Furthermore BT is not only a wire replacement like WiFi. It also provide specifications for how devices interoperate in a way that allow different brands to be used together with minimal fuss. (This hasn't always worked due to bugs and such though.)

In short, Bluetooth is not going away. And none of the technologies you see today (IrDA, Zigbee, WiFi, WUSB) are competing with Bluetooth.

Losing bluetooth? by boisepunk · 2004-08-31 07:56 · Score: 1, Flamebait

"Considering SonyEricsson is a major supporter of Bluetooth technology, will this have a huge impact on its adoption?"

Not to troll or flamebait, but I find Bluetooth to be an inferior technology. And while widespread adoption of a technology sometimes makes the said technology improved upon, I was beginning to feel that this is one of a few exceptions, although I wish it wasn't/isn't. If bluetooth is on its way to death, good riddance. If it's here to stay, I hope it gets better, A LOT better.

--
main(0)

Re:Losing bluetooth? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:14 · Score: 0

Not to troll or flamebait, but I find Bluetooth to be an inferior technology. And while widespread adoption of a technology sometimes makes the said technology improved upon, I was beginning to feel that this is one of a few exceptions, although I wish it wasn't/isn't. If bluetooth is on its way to death, good riddance. If it's here to stay, I hope it gets better, A LOT better.

Inferior in what way. Better in what way. Are you saying it's too slow? Well it's fast enough for the headsets, keyboards, etc that it's designed to be used in. Are you implying that wifi is the future, not unless they figure out a way to severly lower it's power requirements (plus if you think that you have problems getting clear channels now, just wait). True, it has some vulnerabilities that needs to be addressed, but then again, so does wifi. So how about some more meat to your very generic and not very insightful comments
Re:Losing bluetooth? by NatasRevol · 2004-08-31 08:22 · Score: 1

Ever consider that the problem wasn't with the technology, but with your implementation of it?

On my Mac, I plugged in a bluetooth adaper to the keyboard, turned on bluetooth on my phone, ran iSync to find the phone and synced the selected data.

I don't know how much easier you want it to be. So I'm thinking that it's your implementation that's the issue, not the technology.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Losing bluetooth? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:24 · Score: 0

I wish my bluetooth phone would work. Every time I put on a pot of coffee the thing doesn't work.
Re:Losing bluetooth? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:31 · Score: 0

YOu fucking Mac zealot. Go fuck Steve Rim Jobs instead of giving us this crap.
Re:Losing bluetooth? by squiggleslash · 2004-08-31 08:35 · Score: 1

Inferior compared to what? Compared to IrDA, which it largely replaced? How? Do you miss IrDA's directionality?
Bluetooth is very good at what it's designed to do, allow you to connect devices without cables, without having to line things up, just get them together, register them the first time you do this, and then act as if the things are plugged in.
I can't think of any other technologies in widespread use that do this so well. IrDA's directionality made it awkward, you ended up having to line things up, you couldn't just start syncing the cellphone in your pocket to the address book on your PC. It's actually easier to use USB cables. When Clinton lied, no-one died.
In terms of other wireless technologies, DECT is too task specific, and 802.11a/b/g is too much of an Ethernet replacement. You don't want your keyboard to talk to a machine on the other side of the room, and protocols to link devices via 802.11 would be awkward, to say the least.
It would be nice to see some actual reasons why you feel Bluetooth fails and "good riddance" should it be on its way to death.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Losing bluetooth? by charliekowalchuk · 2004-08-31 09:38 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was begining to feel the same way about USB.

Lets BURN THEM ALL and RETURN to PARALLEL

^_^

Bluetooth adoption by agristin · 2004-08-31 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

In spite of Ericsson pulling out, I think Bluetooth adoption will speed up. Maybe they are getting out of the game at the right time for them, sometimes the money is in a product before commodification.

The reason I think Bluetooth adoption will speed up is it is on most of the Apple pc products now. That happened with USB also. At that time PS/2 (or adb) was still the favorite connector for keyboards and mice, now on Mac and many PC's USB is the way.

As a further prognostication, I think Bluetooth could be the high end mouse/keyboard/PDA/cell phone connector of choice down the road. While USB is handy, the new iMac shows that lacking a swarm of cables can be a nice feature.

-A

Re:Bluetooth adoption by Anita+Coney · 2004-08-31 08:00 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight, because three percent of computers are sold with Bluetooth, the adoption of Bluetooth "will speed up."?!

Sure this post is flamebait, but that does not change its veracity!

--
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.

Bluetooth was dead from the start by NachoDaddy · 2004-08-31 07:57 · Score: 0, Redundant

The cost of implementing Bluetooth vs. the benefit of using it was waaay out of whack.
It was always a solution looking for a problem.

T608 by rveno1 · 2004-08-31 07:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I cant say much about why they are dropping the unit but us useful to know that SonyEriccson has had some trouble with the t608 Bluetooth phone (used on the sprint network).
Part of it was them "obtaining" some technology from qualcomm,
To the t608 being a bluetooth phone with some interesting bugs

Here are some links with more details:

http://www.sprintpcsinfo.com/modules.php?name=Ne ws &file=article&sid=445

http://www.sprintpcsinfo.com/modules.php?name=Ne ws &file=article&sid=555

Re:T608 by clifyt · 2004-08-31 08:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, the 608 ended up being a wash for me.

$200 for a phone that is worthless except for sync'ing phone numbers with my Mac.

It was supposed to be much more, but it ended up getting crippled -- more by Sprint than SE and after a year of delays because Sprint was afraid everyone was going to use it solely to bridge internet connections with their powerbooks, SE killed the division that was making these for Sprint (I believe this was the CDMA division, while they decided to focus on GSM...fuck, I don't know, I'm just spouting letters that mean nothing to me).

I have my 608 right beside me, and compared to the 610, its worthless as anything except an expensive phone with a horrible screen that one can't read with any sort of daylight (it does work well for the nightlife -- I use mine as a flashlight coming home occasionally....but damn, try using it outside at noon).

ahem slashdot reading skills by linuxislandsucks · 2004-08-31 07:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Please reread the article

Eericsson shifted the bleutooth work to a difrferent division folks..no stopping bluetooth at ericsson but a shifting of resources..

Micahel why did you avoid reading the 2nd paragraph?

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

Re:ahem slashdot reading skills by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

Micahel why did you avoid reading the 2nd paragraph?

You're assuming he even got to the first. ;)
Re:ahem slashdot reading skills by thewiz · 2004-08-31 08:59 · Score: 1

Well,
It's good to hear that Ericsson isn't going to be "toothless".

But is the shift going to cause the engineers to sing the "gonna-get-laid-off-if-I-don't-pull-up-stakes-and- move-to-a-new-town" blues?

--
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?

Does it matter? by ericdano · 2004-08-31 08:00 · Score: 1

Seriously, a couple of years ago they mattered as a cell phone maker. Who actually owns an Ericsson? My first cell phone in 1996 was one. Since then, it's been Nokia and now Motorola.....

--
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--

Re:Does it matter? by shaka · 2004-08-31 08:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Heh. It sounds as if you're American. Sony Ericsson has been doing major inroads the last year and a half or so, mostly at Nokia's expense. You see, while all of Nokia's phones look like an alien has designed them, Sony Ericsson's actually look nice, and they are almost all very feature packed.

Then again, you wouldn't know if you live in the US, since you lot have been 2-3 years behind in mobile telephony adoption for the last 10 years.

--
:wq!
Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:11 · Score: 0

Sony Ericsson T-610 (or T-616 if you have AT&T). Its the sexiest phone on the market. You can't beat this phone with a stick.
Re:Does it matter? by lpangelrob2 · 2004-08-31 08:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

I own a Sony Ericsson T610. So far, it hasn't had any battery problems like the AT&T cell I had a few years back, or any display problems like the Nokia cheap phones I had before this one.
It has cheap Java games on it that I could probably write better games for. It has mini golf and some random adventure game. I play both every now and then... especially the golf.
It does an okay job of organizing my contacts without bluetooth. But this is an article about bluetooth, so let me go further. My phone knows everything about my PowerBook's Address Book thanks to iSync over bluetooth. My PowerBook has sent music files to the phone via bluetooth. And it's sent back the (admittedly crappy yet cool) pictures I took of Wrigley Field when I decided to go ahead and set a pic of Wrigley as the background.
It has text messaging and WAP services, but I don't need those, so I don't pay for them or use them. If I ever need a hotspot from T-Mobile, it'll be for the PowerBook, not the phone.
This is my experience, and why I think the Ericsson I have makes an excellent phone to mark as the standard to beat for the next couple of years.

--
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
Re:Does it matter? by Chop · 2004-08-31 09:17 · Score: 1

I do. When my dog chewed up my Nokia from Cingular, I was told I would have to buy a new phone for $129.00 just to get the same features as the freebie phone I had (color screen, don't need a camera). I found my new phone on ebay, it just happens to be an Ericsson and it has bluetooth as that was my main requirement. I also had to get an unlocked phone from Europe because all the bluetooth phones in the USA are > $250.00. I paid $60.00 after shipping and it came with the pc cable and a free wired headset.

Chop
Re:Does it matter? by charliekowalchuk · 2004-08-31 09:50 · Score: 1

Well, I have to agree with the others. Mr. "I've had a cell phone for 8 years" (blah blah blah, that means I'm an expert about everything now and in the future, blah blah blah)

Seriously dude, it sounds like you've just been buying whatever came with your contract because if you actually studied the statistics, you'd know that Nokia and Motorola own a Substantial part of the US market. (ever given thought to why its now the NOKIA sugar bowl and the Motorola half time report) However Sony Ericsson owns a good part of the Asian and European market.

Oh, and since this is about Bluetooth...
your Motorola brand has a good selection of Bluetooth phones
Re:Does it matter? by E-Rock · 2004-08-31 10:23 · Score: 1

Let me hang up my T610 for a minute to reply. Checking the european and american SE product pages, they look really similar. All the same products. No 2-3 year gap in products.

Wow, and you wonder why people find Europeans to be pretentious pricks? Put down the hateraide, ass.
Re:Does it matter? by Wayfare · 2004-08-31 10:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

True, SE have mostly the same cell phones in both markets (except for which GSM bands they have), but the US cell phone market is still far behind the European.

The 2-3 year gap he was talking about is with the networks, the adoption of the superior GSM tech; just basically the slow movement of the US cell phone market in general.
Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 18:37 · Score: 0

Have some understanding on the poor European, mobile technology is about the only thing we have real reason to feel smug about, and even there our advantage is rapidly being eroded.

As for the attitude problem, it would be magnanimous of you to get used to it or just ignore it. After all, it's not like Americans are innocent of smugness towards foreigners either...
Re:Does it matter? by animaal · 2004-08-31 21:05 · Score: 1

Although the same phones tend to be available in most countries, I have noticed that on average, americans tend to have older phones than europeans... If it's still the case, it may be because europeans get those same phones dirt-cheap. For example, I got a Sony-Ericsson T630 recently for 50 euros (about $45 ?). As far as I know, even that's expensive compared to other neighbouring European countries. Handset prices are subsidised by the mobile networks here.

On the other hand, americans tend to have much better laptops than we do. Those things are much more expensive in this part of the world.

Personally, I'd prefer an older phone, and a better laptop, but them's the breaks!
Re:Does it matter? by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-08-31 22:01 · Score: 1

ALthough your post is full of the very hate you acuse us europeans of possessing, lets disect your arguements.

Yes, the RANGE of available phones in US and EUrope are the same now, however, the adoption rates are vastly different, due to the market maturity.

Take for example the T610 that you mention. WHen i was in USA, i pulled out my T610 and people looked, and the "wow" factor was certainly there. here in UK, its like noone takes notice, because they are more common.

In europe, people tend to go for the upper range phones, due to many reasons whcih do not yet apply in North America.

- In Europe, coverage is pretty much licked. Operators compete now on services, and when a fancy new phone with new featurs (MMS, Video Messaging, 3rd G) come available, you can bet that the operators have the services up and running to support these features. In general, in europe you dont have to buy the hardware, then wait months before the operators catch up and provide the backend services.

- Despite the fact that cellphone operators royally shaft us in the backside with their Tarrifs (especially in the UK), they counter it with very geneorus subsidies. The T610 was essentially free on contract when it came out. even now, many high end phoens are free/low price.

Soo, yes comparing ranges is pointless., but for a decent analogy, look at BMW, they have the same range in Europe, India, and the USA, yet its adoption in hte three different coutnries varies (Europe has high penetration, USA is somewhat less, and india, only the rich can afford)

--
Have a nice day!
Re:Does it matter? by E-Rock · 2004-09-01 04:04 · Score: 1

Sorry, the prickishness was a rhetorical device.

My T610 only gets looks from people who's cell company isn't compatible. I know about 10 other people who have them. No wow factor any more.
Re:Does it matter? by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-09-01 07:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, sorry for the equally pricky start to the reply...

I guess things have changed since i last came to USA (which was end of last year)

But yeah, you did highlight one point that isnt a problem in Europe, and the rest of the world, and thats compatibility.

Since we have only one Digital Cellphone standard (GSM), that is compatible across the world (expect to some extents, USA & Canada, and not compatible at all in Japan), a phone is usually avaiable on ALL operators.

I know in Slashdot we argue against monopoly standards, but i think in the case of GSM, it has actually worked, due to the standard behing developed by not one company, but by a committee consisting of members of the Industry and government. Sure sometimes the wheels of a comittee does turn slow, but in this case it has seemed to have worked, and worked well.

the important thing is we should learn from this well, and apply it to other things (ie, W3C, a Standard OS loader, a Standard API, etc)

--
Have a nice day!
Re:Does it matter? by 21mhz · 2004-09-01 09:20 · Score: 1

all of Nokia's phones look like an alien has designed them

My feelings too. Nokia should hire designers who smoke less crack and are able to overcome their wild creativity so as to refrain from making the keypad something other than a fucking rectangular 4x3 key array plus some navigation buttons.
Occasionally, however, they do create a damn good model, such as Nokia 6230. I drooled for it... only to find out that Sony Ericsson T630 has pretty much the same features at 2/3 the price.

--
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.

bluetooth, dead? by ricochet81 · 2004-08-31 08:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Recap:

USB going wireless
Bluetooth declared dead.
Bluetooth ships 1M unis
Bluetooth is dead
is apple still dying too?

--
Error: Id10t detected

Re:bluetooth, dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:14 · Score: 0

is apple still dying too?

no, but i'm pretty sure bsd is
Re:bluetooth, dead? by AltaMannen · 2004-08-31 08:22 · Score: 1

Harald Bluetooth has been dead for around 1000 years. Bluetooth the technology died to me when I tried to set up my PC with it (which never worked, but my PDA can work with other devices over bluetooth, just not my PC).

Re:Bluetooth is dead by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-08-31 08:00 · Score: 2, Informative

I use it- but perhaps GPS and Windows CE 3.0 isn't a significant number of devices to you. Personally, I'm waiting to get a GPS phone to start programming and testing a GPS-aware Web Browser for Windows CE- I think such a beast could be quite usefull.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Apple and Bluetooth by artlu · 2004-08-31 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only reason that i purchased another Sony Ericsson phone after having the T68i was because of BlueTooth. Apple is a big supporter of Bluetooth as well so my T616 and G4 Powerbook integrated perfectly. I guess this will be my last Ericsson phone now. Time to go for the Treo 650 with bluetooth around XMAS time.

GroupShares Inc.

--
-------
artlu.net

Re:Bluetooth is dead by njfuzzy · 2004-08-31 08:02 · Score: 1

I specifically asked about BlueTooth both of the last two times I bought a cellphone. It was the only feature that would have gotten me to spend more on a phone at the time, had it been available to me.

--
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com

Good News Bad News... by slipnslidemaster · 2004-08-31 08:03 · Score: 1, Funny

Bad News:

One of the key developers of Bluetooth is shutting down the division that helped foster the personal area networking technology.

Good News:

But I did save a bundle on my car insurance.

--

"What the hell is an aluminum falcon?"

Re:Bluetooth is dead by jav1231 · 2004-08-31 08:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah. Put Bluetooth on the Segway with a VoIP phone and you have a hype-mobile!

Re:Bluetooth is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:04 · Score: 0

Anything running Windows is not significant here on /.

Completly wrong... by SlashdotTroll · 2004-08-31 08:05 · Score: 1

First, I apologise for the completly negatory subject and I will follow shortly with a proved rebuttal. The article text says, quoth { "Further advancements in Bluetooth technology will be made by the Special Interest Group, which consists of a number of companies with ties to the technology. Ericsson will remain a part of that group." } quoth Ericson isn't leaving the market per se; perhaps they see profit in regulating the market and licensing technology that interoperates with Ericson. Yes, my anticipation is unfounded as of yet, but they have never ceased to amaze us all with their products. Consider software and intelectual property; ideas on paper cost less to market and more profit margin than to risk implementing a large volume of possibly quirky products that is demanded by users to improve stability et al. Ericson is to phones as SCO is to software; they just want to sell a license, and no crime in that with exception to the current monopolies.

--

I am the nightmare of nightmares.

Novacaine by MikeMacK · 2004-08-31 08:05 · Score: 3, Funny

Ericsson Pulls Bluetooth

Hope they got a shot of novacaine first.

...not terribly surprised... by jonesboy_damnit · 2004-08-31 08:07 · Score: 1

Bluetooth has been a money-losing proposition for Ericsson for a long while. Also, I had a change to play with one of their early developer kits, and I hated it. The interface was terrible, the software was buggy, and even the hardware was unstable. IBM's kit was much better. Ah, it just wouldn't be Slashdot if *somebody* didn't slag their technology.
-Matt

Re:...not terribly surprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 11:56 · Score: 0

I worked at Ericsson Richardson (a suburb of Dallas) years ago. The campus was exploding, and Ericsson Village in Plano (down the road from EDS) was nearing completion, and coming online.

South America was keeping the switching division (make the big telco switches) alive, and the cellphone test lab was absolutely full. It looked like all was well.....

Then the downturn. People were showing up for work, with a note on the door "clean your stuff out by Friday". This went on for weeks, nobody knew who was going next. The layoffs would die down, then another wave would hit.

Then the bombshell. The cellphone division was merging with Sony, one of the main competitors! C Building was a ghost town. (The datacenter in B building was about the only thing really active, but between P building datacenter and the Village coming online, nobody knew what was going on. P building datacenter was getting emptied fast)

I cant help but remember the conversations "Bluetooth was going to save us!". It seemed like they were betting the company on Bluetooth, and it's not paying off.

They are adapting, and shifting focus. They have some great engineers, but leave the manufacturing to others. (Brazil made most of the cell phones, and Sweeden is company headquarters. Quite impressive too). I cant wait to see what they come up with next.

(Oh, and I got lots of cool stuff to play with from them)

This is dumb by poofyhairguy82 · 2004-08-31 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

will this have a huge impact on its adoption

Why would it? What other technology can do what bluetooth can do? It doesn't really have a direct competitor. The market is just not as large as some people expected. It does not "replace wires." It removes (some) wires for people who are willing to pay extra. Most of the bluetooth products are top notch and top dollar, so they have a specific market. Adoption was limited at the start.

--

Open Source Sushi

not a good comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

No effect at all. JVC invented the VHS standard, it's small market share was not signifigant in it's adoption. Phillips invented the redbook audio CD, it's influence is miniscule today, or even 15 years ago.

Actually not a very good comparison at all. The better comparison is if JVC or Philips/Sony had dropped out of their respective markets in the "early" stages, not where their market share's are now. JVC and Sony were locked in a titanic struggle with the beta/vhs wars. Had JVC blinked first, it would have had a very negative impact on the continued adoption of vhs. The CD had no contemporary competition to deal with, so it wasn't as reliant on a single backer, even though it had two of the biggest names behind it anyway.

Re:not a good comparison by Dr.+Evil · 2004-08-31 08:28 · Score: 2, Funny

The CD had no contemporary competition to deal with
DAT (recordable, backward compatible) and Minidisc (recordable, more portable)?
Re:not a good comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:47 · Score: 0

DAT (recordable, backward compatible) and Minidisc (recordable, more portable)?

DAT was 5 years after cd's and md was a full 10 years.
Re:not a good comparison by Dr.+Evil · 2004-08-31 09:32 · Score: 1

Looking it up, you're right, but not quite by that much, CDs were adopted in '83, DAT in '87, MD in '88.
I vaguely remember MD and DAT trying to compete with CDs, as CD players were still expensive at the time, and did not have recording capability.
Re:not a good comparison by British · 2004-08-31 09:57 · Score: 1

I actually rememember a Minidisc music section(just like a regular music library, but all on minidiscs) at Title Wave 10 years ago. Of course now Title Wave is gone. Too bad, it was a good video store.
Re:not a good comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 10:18 · Score: 0

I vaguely remember MD and DAT trying to compete with CDs, as CD players were still expensive at the time, and did not have recording capability.

Yes, I remember when DAT first came on the scene. I never could figure out what the hubbabaloo was about. One of the greatest strengths of cd over cassette tapes was random access, a godsend at the time. While access times in DAT were better, still nothing compared to cd's. And face it, at that point in time, people were more concerned about listening than recording since cassettes were still accepted as the preferred method (and in reality remained that way until cdr and really mp3's came about). MD was too little too late. CD's were waaay too established, and again, people didn't really care that much about recording onto a little device (at the time and at that cost).
Re:not a good comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 11:05 · Score: 0

DAT was adopted as a standard in the music industry for creating 2-track master recordings at least, but consumer DAT was never going to take off - people wanted the "instant" access time that CD offered more than the ability to record (at least, that was my attitude).

Minidisc is still pretty popular in the UK. Major retailers such as MVC still have minidisc sections where you can purchase a limited selection of music - most people I know with minidisc buy a CD and record it onto minidisc instead however.

Minidisc is also popular with music students over here - minidisc coupled with some of the high quality cheap microphones you can get these days is a great way to analyse your own playing.
Re:not a good comparison by redhat421 · 2004-08-31 16:42 · Score: 1

I don't get it, why is the parent post funny?

Thank you Bluetooth! by WormholeFiend · 2004-08-31 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

for helping me to get laid in the UK.

sony ericsson by ProfBooty · 2004-08-31 08:10 · Score: 1

I own two sony ericcsons, they are all over japan as well.

--
Bring back the old version of slashdot.

boo hoo by panic911 · 2004-08-31 08:10 · Score: 0, Troll

Bluetooth sucks anyway :P

Re:Bluetooth is dead by icecow · 2004-08-31 08:12 · Score: 1

That might just work!
Of course they would have to set up a bluetooth tower every 10 feet or so.

--
Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.

just like infra-red ports on everything.... by bandy · 2004-08-31 08:14 · Score: 0

So Bluetooth is going the way of IRDA. Say "Buh-bye".. In a year or two's time, you won't see it on any new devices.

--
"You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister

BAH... Sorry for the bad link... by BlueCup · 2004-08-31 08:15 · Score: 1

I don't know how I managed to copy the link wrong... heh... just remove the slashdot part of the link...

--
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!

In typical slashdot fashion... by Critical_ · 2004-08-31 08:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

In typical Slashdot function, we see people sitting here typing away responses about how useless bluetooth is for wireless-whatever due to its short range. Unfortunately for those people, they never realized that bluetooth is a wire-replacement technology. When I have my cell phone on at my desk, I don't want to feel like I am sitting in a hospital ICU bed with a bunch of wires hanging off my body. Instead, my bluetooth headset takes care of that part. Also, at my current location, internet access via Edge is far more useful and cheaper than buying DSL. So it serves two purposes right there that 802.11 is too killer for. Also, sync'ing my PDA is much easier than having to drag a craddle with me everywhere. My point is that SE is only moving their bluetooth operations under another division so bluetooth is not going anywhere and I am glad. 802.11 is too power hunger for the things I need to get done. Lastly, big manufacturers such as Dell are doing away with ALL legacy ports such are IrDA, Parallel, Serial, so we are left with firewire, USB, and bluetooth. Out of those, bluetooth makes the most sense.

Re:In typical slashdot fashion... by owlstead · 2004-08-31 12:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Not really. The speed difference is humoungous between the three. Firewire 800 trounces all, but is expensive and not omnipresent. USB 2.0 is pretty fast with its 480 MBit/sec (though FW 400 can be faster due to a better implementation) and is found in almost any (host) device. Bluetooth, with 721 Kbit/sec does not even come in close. Even with 2.1 Mbit/sec it would be a dog compared with the other too.

To top things off, FW 800 can have multiple hosts, while USB and Bluetooth are Master/Slave configurations, with the limits thereof. My BT phone can talk to other BT phones though, so it seems that they can both be master and slave at the same time, making the bluetooth spec pretty usefull in that respect.

In other words, they are quite complementary, though Firewire might only be left in specialized products in the time to come. Note that USB to Serial/Parallel convertors can be found almost anywhere. And bugger IrDA.
Re:In typical slashdot fashion... by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-08-31 22:05 · Score: 1

Haha, reminds me of the time i tried synching my phone with outlook via blutooth, except i couldnt actually PHYSICALLY locate my phone!.. its synched well though ;) took me two futher mintuies to find it in my coat pocket hanging on the hanger!

--
Have a nice day!

Zigbee by CaptainPinko · 2004-08-31 08:16 · Score: 1

I remember hearing about it a long time ago but I couldn't figure out it's purpose espcially considering the existence of BlueTooth. Well a quick google got me the official Zigbee and this interesting PDF. It has a nice over view.

Though whats with the name? It's quite unusual and far from catchy. Ity's funny because my dad's name is Zbigniew and for short he goes by "Zbig" and people *still* mangle it and one othe common things he gets is "Zigbee"

--
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.

They were just promoting it by ugen · 2004-08-31 08:18 · Score: 1

On a few recent Continental flights there was a (clearly sponsored) article in their magazine about a Swedish engineer that was an "inventor" of a Bluetooth. The article was promoting the technology in general, Ericsson in particular and was extremely upbeat about endless future horizons for this brand new technology. I remember wondering then whether their marketing department is feeling desperate.

Re:Bluetooth is dead by lidocaineus · 2004-08-31 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

The short range may have something to do with it.

If you think that's a liability, you really don't understand the hallmarks of bluetooth and what its purposes are.

little impact by jeif1k · 2004-08-31 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bluetooth has become commoditized; it's in the hands of low-cost chip manufacturers. That makes it uninteresting for a company like Ericsson and they are better off just buying whatever BT technology they need cheaper from elsewhere. If anything, that's probably a sign of maturity of the technology.

God I hope not by sjbe · 2004-08-31 08:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Perhaps if we're lucky, Bluetooth will go away.

You haven't used Bluetooth have you? Or maybe you just had a bad experience. I don't know. What I do know is that Bluetooth is a feature I now regard as indespensible in my phone, pda and, soon, headphones. I won't even consider a phone, pda or laptop without it now.

My phone and PDA (nokia 6310i and Palm Tungsten T3) essentially act as one device thanks almost entirely to bluetooth. I can look up a number in my Palm, tap it and it automatically dials on my phone. But unlike a smartphone, I can leave the PDA behind if I don't need it. If I want to sync my phone or pda with my computer, I don't have to find a cable, I just do it. If I want to check email on my laptop or my pda, I connect automatically through the bluetooth modem in my phone and it's like carrying a (admittidly slow until I get an EDGE phone) wifi hotspot with me everywhere. Driving in my car? Bluetooth headset. I don't even have to pull the phone out of the bag and there are no wires needed.

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, Bluetooth is seriously cool. It makes it very easy for devices to interact. Will something better come along one day? Sure. But in the mean time, bluetooth does the job and does it very well.

Re:God I hope not by ElGuapoGolf · 2004-08-31 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem is, I think, that you mention Bluetooth to most people, and those who have heard of it think it's Just Another Wireless Thingy. They think about 802.11b or whatever and don't see the need for bluetooth.

Then when they're with you in your car, and you get an incoming call and your stereo automagically cuts off and a message pops up on the radio display with all your caller ID info, they're confused and a little shocked. Then when you hit a button and your talking via a mic in the car, and hearing the caller come in over the speakers, they're amazed.

The PDA to cellphone via bluetooth to browse the internet, IMO, is even better than a hotspot, but to the non-techie, the car thing is like seeing into the future.

Re:just like infra-red ports on everything.... by Cloud+9 · 2004-08-31 08:28 · Score: 1

In a year or two's time, you won't see it on any new devices.

I haven't seen a cellphone, PDA, or laptop that didn't have IRDA that was released in the past twelve months, including the low end stuff. It's become so ubiquitous, nobody even notices it anymore.

Now, that's not to say that many people actually use the technology, but it seems like such an inexpensive feature that it's usually included by default.

--
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)

Little old ladies by Bender+Unit+22 · 2004-08-31 08:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

So are people here a bunch of little old ladies?
All those people writing about it being dead. Are there no technology/gadet geeks here. I have many uses for Bluetooth.
I got a Notebook with bluetooth so I don't need any wires to update my calender. Updating phone numbers to friends, co-workers, business relations are a lot easier with Bluetooth.
I use Bluetooth to transfer MP3 files to the phone which also serves as a MP3 player when I am not taking the car to work.
I also got a Bluetooth car kit installed, hopefully I don't need to get a entire new set installed when I change phone in the future, just the holder/charger. You can even get cars with Bluetooh phone kits that fits with the car.
On rare occations I have used Bluetooth and GPRS to connect to servers using SSH from my notebook, although the latency are REALLY bad, but if you are in the middle of nowhere it's better than having to drive home.
Some of my co-workers likes to use those Bluetooth head sets.

I see bluetooth phones all over the place, from my desk at work, I see about 15 different bluetooth devices, phones, PCs, PDAs and printers. When I take the subway home from work I can always see 2-3 other Bluetooth phones.

I admit that a lot of phones had a lousy implentation with few features, which has not helped the adoption.

Ok, maybe it is just in my "world" that Bluetooth is used, or maybe it is just non-existent in America?

Re:Little old ladies by charliekowalchuk · 2004-08-31 09:56 · Score: 1

No, you shouldn't have to install anything new, thats the Magic of Bluetooth. Unlike others, (from what I gather, anyway), Bluetooth is very multi platform - multi manufacture - multi user friendly. Besides, you can bet that if MAC picked this up, its not going to die anytime soon.
Re:Little old ladies by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-08-31 22:08 · Score: 1

You WILL be able to use your existing car handsfree with a different model of Cellphone!

My friend uses a SonyEricsson BT headset with his Nokia phone, and a Motorola Car BT Handsfree kit...

--
Have a nice day!

WUSB by BadMrMojo · 2004-08-31 08:33 · Score: 1

I certainly hope that other short distance wireless technologies (like WUSB) do take off.

WUSB will never take off, sadly. It's just too ugly of an acronym and people are sheep.

"This new mouse is great! It's even wussbee!"

See what I mean?

Not a big deal by freitasm · 2004-08-31 08:36 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Ericsson created Bluetooth, but it is in the mainstream now, so the company no longer needs to "seed" the development of the technology. It can now licence what is needed, buy the silicon, whatever at much cheaper prices.

Also, Sony Ericsson is not Ericsson. Sony Ericsson makes mobile phones, Ericsson is another company, with interests in Sony Ericsson.

Re:Not a big deal by freitasm · 2004-08-31 10:17 · Score: 1

Can someone explain how my comment, which is 100% related to how Ericsson approaches the Bluetooth thing, and how the article is wrongly talking about Sony Ericsson, can be modded to "offtopic"?

Re:Bluetooth is dead by Macrat · 2004-08-31 08:36 · Score: 1

hmmm.

better tell that to my bluetooth cell phone

and my bluetooth headset

And my bluetooth Macintosh

Obvious Microsoft Move by alexborges · 2004-08-31 08:37 · Score: 1

Okay, consider:

A) Symbian being in the hands of a monopolist like Nokia (instead of a monopolist, like sony and/or ericsson)

B) Linux not in the radar

C) Windows not really being friends with bluetooth

Now you tell me.,.... my take? S/Ericsson is going winCE and is going to fuck everybody over with little blue cards and vaio-windows connectivity.

Now i say let them! They do not dominate anyhow so..let them do it

--
NO SIG

Re:Bluetooth is dead by erick99 · 2004-08-31 08:38 · Score: 1

Did you look at the Motorola V600? It is a souped up V400 with a Bluetooth "earset" thingie that wraps around one ear and glows blue. It works within 30 feet or so (I used to sell them)of the phone. That was getting to be a pretty popular phone but more for the video capability and the "cool" factor of how the phone looked. I sold one bluetooth earpiece for every 50 phones at best. But please note that I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that nobody was interested, just not nearly enough.

Cheers,

Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Windows now supports Bluetooth by plover · 2004-08-31 08:39 · Score: 1

Windows XP Service Pack 2 supports Bluetooth natively. It discovered my Bluetooth dongle (Belkin F8T001) and put a new toolbar thing next to the system tray. I didn't even notice it until it added a menu-up arrow that included my phone that it must have spotted.

That said, it's still really buggy. Every time I've tried clicking on it, Windows Explorer crashes utterly. That led me to notice something else with Service Pack 2: Explorer now properly refreshes all the system tray icons when it comes back up. No more orphaned tasks because the icons have disappeared. Anyway, I'm still using the Belkin system tray icon for accessing the Bluetooth features.

--
John

Re:Windows now supports Bluetooth by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 09:35 · Score: 0

And that, my friend, is one of the major influences on the (non)adoption of BT. Everything BT related that MS has touched is utter, complete, through-and-through... SHIT.

MS's implementation is almost so bad that it seems intentional. No support would be better than the level of support their POS drivers provide. Someone independent would probably make a better BT stack, just as some people have done with a number of MS protocol stacks.

Meanwhile, thousands of people uneventfully use their cellphones, PDAs, headsets, and whatnot with their Macs.... And like it.

Re:Bluetooth is dead by erick99 · 2004-08-31 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually I do. I've been in technology (both engineering and marketing) for 24 years and I have seen it all. The short range is too short for too many applications. It's an opinion based on a lot of experience but it is, after all, just mine.

Cheers,

Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

BT alive and well, misunderstood by idsofmarch · 2004-08-31 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I disagree, BT is great for short-range transfer of data using low-power chips, I use it with my Powerbook, my cell phone and headset, and have used it to sync PDAs, etc. for others. The short-range is actually as much as 10-meters, and BT was developed as a Personal Area Network protocol, meaning if you're bigger than 10-meters you're a pilot whale and BT ain't gonna' help that.

--
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.

Re:Bluetooth is dead by atomly · 2004-08-31 08:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, geez, it's not like Apple just announced today that the new iMac will be using it for wireless keyboard and mouse! And no way is it standard in every mid-to-high-range phone! And it's definitely not the preferred standard for PC-phone connectivity or wireless headsets.

People should just get over it.

--
-- atomly :: atomly(at)atomly(dot)com :: http://www.atomly.com/

bluetooth got blueballed by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:50 · Score: 0

They're not getting back up after this one

How can it be dead if by twbecker · 2004-08-31 08:51 · Score: 1

it was never really alive? How long has Bluetooth been on the horizon? A long freaking time. And now that it's "here", it's still pretty much a scarecly available novelty. As far as this move slowing it's adoption, my question is what's stopping companies from adopting it now? Nothing, they just choose not to. Face it, Bluetooth may not be vaporware, but the promise of it has proven to be.

--
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln

So Bluetooth's been adopted by the Apple Crowd by Alzheimers · 2004-08-31 08:52 · Score: 1

So Bluetooth's being used by almost 1% of the population. Sounds like a real winner in my book!

Honestly, it hasn't been accepted by the hardware world in general. USB was great for device connectivity, but I'm still using PS/2 for keyboards and mice, and Parallel cables for printers. My network still runs on 10/100BaseT.

Aside from cellphone headsets and PDAs, and the random MAC user, has BT ever really been adopted? Not niche market, my-toster-talks-to-my-fridge sort of devices, but in everyday solutions?

Re:So Bluetooth's been adopted by the Apple Crowd by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 10:10 · Score: 0

. . . I'm still using PS/2 for keyboards and mice, and Parallel cables for printers. My network still runs on 10/100BaseT.

You can take that onion off of your belt. It's no longer the style.
Re:So Bluetooth's been adopted by the Apple Crowd by superpixel2000 · 2004-08-31 15:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Right on brother! My Timex Sinclair is all I need... Do they make a BT membrane keyboard?

--
did you win a free ipod? build a case for it here
Re:So Bluetooth's been adopted by the Apple Crowd by wurtel · 2004-09-01 01:48 · Score: 1

Here's a bluetooth solution to hear spoken turn-by-turn directions on a motorcycle, without any wires between the GPS and your helmet: perfect pilot
That's a sort of "everyday" solution.

Sigh... by JohnA · 2004-08-31 08:54 · Score: 1

All I really want is a sub-$50 bluetooth mouse, and a bluetooth ergo keyboard for use with my PBook.

So far, the Apple offerings come up short, mainly because of Steve Jobs' jihad against 2 mouse buttons, and the complete carpal-tunnel engine that is the standard Mac keyboard...

Re:Sigh... by charliekowalchuk · 2004-08-31 10:05 · Score: 1

Seriously, thats why BT hasn't jumped ahead of its competetors, why would I justify a $60 dollar headset, just so I don't have to plug my FREE handsfree headset in? And I'd love a BT mouse, just not at the price of $70.
Re:Sigh... by marciot · 2004-08-31 11:17 · Score: 1

I *love* my BT500. Long live Bluetooth!
Re:Sigh... by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-08-31 22:11 · Score: 1

When driving, having a wire dangling down the side is *proven* to subconsiously get in the way.. its not like it really gets into the way, but because you feel the wire dangling, you dont turn your head as much as you would if it was not there.

I certainly feel more uncomfortable and restricted wearing a wired headset, as oppossed to a wirefree headset.

--
Have a nice day!

Hey Shithead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 08:56 · Score: 0

I am an engineer.

You had me convinced until there.

Sincerely,
The Guy Your Mom Loves Blowing.

Not a long move... by daijo78 · 2004-08-31 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I live in Lund, Sweden, where both the Technology Licensing group and Ericsson Mobile Platforms are located. No more then 500 m apart! Sure they have to cross the highway but I think they'll manage. Maybe this isn't much more then merging to departments. Perhaps EMP responsible for the platform as a whole and one department for Bluetooth licensing doesn't make sense finacially. Just a thought.

Re:Bluetooth is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 09:04 · Score: 0

True, but on the other hand, the range is sufficient for many applications. Given that the idea is that Bluetooth devices should be really small, cheap to build and don't require a lot of power I'd say that it works as one would expect.

ac

Not lame -- think outside the box by plover · 2004-08-31 09:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's getting adopted, although slower than most of us wish. Personally, I think the killer app for Bluetooth will be as the replacement for IR remote controls. Yes, IR is probably about a dollar cheaper per unit, but it's a one-way protocol with no feedback. Imagine a remote that if you pushed the button for channel change, the channel would actually change. Every single time.

And being two-way, a remote would automatically download its configuration right from the device you're controlling. Harmony remotes sort of do this today, but they require USB cables and that you download a configuration from their web site. The Philips Pronto remotes are somewhat cumbersome as their GUI is usually tied to the device, and you still have to find a configuration you like on the net.

Imagine a home where your PC, your phone, your TV, your PDA and your remote control can all interact and play nice. The phone rings? Your Tivo pauses the show, and displays the caller ID on screen allowing you to decide whether to answer it or not. Push the "do not disturb" button on the remote, and your answering machine will take over while you step into the bathroom. Your burglar alarm disarms itself because you walked up to the door, and arms itself as the last cell-phone equipped person leaves. And it's self configuring -- the only requirement is that you pair your devices to indicate "trust". Adding a surround-sound amplifier? Well, your TV, Tivo and cable box would all know about it automatically. Changing channels? Talk to the cable box. Your Tivo will know it's been changed. Raising volume? Your surround sound will handle that if it's on, your TV will handle it if it's off. And turning your system on won't involve four buttons or flaky macros that toggle one thing on but another off, either -- the power switch will turn on everything needed, reliably.

Yeah, it's a ways away yet, but a smart low-power wireless protocol makes it all possible. Being present already in phones, PDAs and PCs, Bluetooth seems like it's the first technology with a real shot at making this happen.

--
John

Re:Not lame -- think outside the box by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 09:32 · Score: 0

Thats a great idea.. but bluetooth has too short a range for that to work. Isn't it around 10 feet? Thats nothin
Re:Not lame -- think outside the box by NachoDaddy · 2004-08-31 09:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most of your home automation ideas are already handled by Crestron.
As far as all your CE deives self configuring by talking over bluetooth, that will never happen.
The reality is that there is no reason for someone like Sony to want to communicate and integrate with Samsung or Motorolla, or anyone else. They would rather see a all Sony solution to the problem, therefore any automatic configuration solutions will always be proprietary.
The only CE manufacturers that would be interested in something common are small manufacturers that can't offer a total solution. But then you have the overbearing licsening of Bluetooth.
Won't happen.
Re:Not lame -- think outside the box by plover · 2004-08-31 09:56 · Score: 1

An Anonymous Coward wrote: Thats a great idea.. but bluetooth has too short a range for that to work. Isn't it around 10 feet? Thats nothin
Good point, although Bluetooth actually has three range classes -- one, ten, and one hundred meters. (I've never seen more than about 8 meters with my phone, though.) The more I read about Zigbee the more I see why the remote control technologies would be using it to perform the functionality I'm hoping for. However, it should be a simple matter of hardware to provide bridging between the two technologies. I also think that the rapid adoption of Bluetooth cell phones would drive a Zigbee-based home installation to have to accomodate all those potential users. Why would anyone want to use a remote control (or five) when they already have a cell phone that could do the job?

--
John
Re:Not lame -- think outside the box by iantri · 2004-08-31 11:12 · Score: 1

Imagine a remote that if you pushed the button for channel change, the channel would actually change. Every single time.
Those exist; they use UHF, mostly.
The remote with my ATI TV Wonder is one, and the remote for my Chaparral C-BAND satellite receiver is also. It is great; you can do with only one satellite receiver (with C-band, more wouldn't be helpful anyway since the channels are spread between a dozen satellites that must be tuned to, but I digress) by just running the RF-out of the receiver to your other TVs.
They are not common, apparently due to the cost.
Re:Not lame -- think outside the box by plover · 2004-08-31 12:02 · Score: 1

Hmm. I had only seen Crestron used for room lighting solutions before, so I just went to their web site. It looks to me like they invented their own solution for whole house automation, and it does look really cool.
But as a mid-level consumer, I can't afford to refit my house with Crestron everything, from light switches to thermostats. At least not today. And, I don't want to carry a Crestron remote any more than I want to carry a Sony remote. I already carry a phone, I want to use that. And if my phone says Bluetooth, and this TV set says Bluetooth, I'll buy it.
And if you're right, and the manufacturers never adopt standards for control, it would still be possible to build a bridge between Bluetooth and whatever is required for my cheapo components. The bridge could be almost as "smart" as the Harmony remote, and head to the web to download configuration data for an IR-controlled Toshiba television and an RF-controlled RCA satellite dish receiver.
I do believe market forces may yet drive consumer electronics makers to adopt standards. If nothing else, some of the more "snobbish" brands will pick up on one of these standards sooner or later. I know I'd spend substantially more for a device that used Bluetooth (hell, I just spent $x00 outfitting my family with new BT phones just so I could have it on mine, where x is a number greater than that to which I will admit.) So, like anything else, it'll happen at the top of the line first, trickle down to the high-middle range of CE gear, and a few years after that Sony will pick up on it and sell the hell out of the bottom end to everyone, implying loudly that "if your gear doesn't have X standard support, it's obsolete." We've seen that happen with all sorts of technology before, from VHS to DVDs, from cassettes to CDs, and from color TV to HDTV (this last one is still cooking, but it's coming quickly.)

--
John
Re:Not lame -- think outside the box by fyonn · 2004-08-31 21:43 · Score: 1

The reality is that there is no reason for someone like Sony to want to communicate and integrate with Samsung or Motorolla, or anyone else. They would rather see a all Sony solution to the problem

well, there is a good reason for sony to want their kit to communicate with motorola and samsung (if there was such a standard) and thats so that people with a samsung hifi could upgrade to sony kit and not lose functionality. this would open markets up to them as long as their equipment is of high enough quality.

I do think something like this will happen, the question is when. perhaps when all equipment communicates by firewire? :)

dave

Re:just like infra-red ports on everything.... by bandy · 2004-08-31 09:17 · Score: 1

Apple laptops: Bluetooth but no IRDA.

Motorola T720/T730 phones: no Btooth or IRDA.

Yes, PDAs still have IRDA [for now].

IBM ThinkPads: T42/X40 yes on IR. ThinkPad R50: No IR.

www.irda.org - still active.

I could be wrong. I just haven't seen it on new things [PDAs excluded] for a couple of years now.

--
"You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister

Microsoft doesn't think Bluetooth is dying by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2004-08-31 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft included some key updates to its built-in Bluetooth technology inside of XP Service Pack 2.

Wish I could find the article I really wanted to link - in it a MS spokesman was saying they were adding more core BT technology into XP itself because their customers were demanding it.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Bluetooth is dead by MBaldelli · 2004-08-31 09:22 · Score: 1

If you think that's a liability, you really don't understand the hallmarks of bluetooth and what its purposes are.

That's the beauty of the market though. It's not about whether or not you actually know the value of Bluetooth Technology -- word of mouth will work against a product when the words short-range come into play. Who wants technology that works only on the short-range when people are actually wanting more? Just the geeks that know it's value and what it means.

--
"The truth points to itself." - Kosh, Babylon5

Other companies make BT phones now by CptChipJew · 2004-08-31 09:25 · Score: 2, Informative

And since Sony Ericcson is one of the lesser phone makers in terms of units sold, I think the technology will be fine.

Another big step in making sure BT is here to stay is to ensure that home PC's come with adapters by default. Apple has been doing this with PowerBooks for over a year now, and that has helped the technology grow.

--
Vonal Declosion

Worst. Wireless Protocol. EVER! by daitengu · 2004-08-31 09:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

My wife and I both have Bluetooth-enabled Nokia Phones (3650, and 3620). I have to say that trying to get it to link to my computer via bluetooth is the most painful experience I've ever been through ... (this is using windows, mind you)

I had to find new drivers for the device, it doesn't seem to recognize more than 1 phone at a time, and the Bluetooth 'network' is continually non-functional.

I'll be glad the day that Bluetooth dies the death it deserves.

Re:Worst. Wireless Protocol. EVER! by creamandchives · 2004-08-31 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well trying BT with Nokia handsets (and windows for that matter) no wonder you had problems. Nokia has some of the worst BT implementation I have ever seen - they just havent got it right yet, not by a long shot.

Most of their phones only seem to support the headset profile to start with. So no file transfers or syncs to other standard software/devices/phones.
Re:Worst. Wireless Protocol. EVER! by charliekowalchuk · 2004-08-31 10:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, don't blame BT just because Nokia cuts every other corner on their cell phones
Re:Worst. Wireless Protocol. EVER! by Ohreally_factor · 2004-08-31 10:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nawwww, you're suffering from Worst. Implementation. By. Microsoft. Evah!

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Worst. Wireless Protocol. EVER! by daitengu · 2004-08-31 11:29 · Score: 1

well, the problem is I haven't found the right software to use with it on linux. Linux machines outnumber windows boxes 3:1 at my house, and I only use Windows when I have to. However, might i point out that Bluetooth is rated to 100 feet maximum? I've never had it go much further than 20 feet with my current device. When other wireless protocols are faster, and allow for a much longer range. This is part of the reason bluetooth failed/is failing. Terrible implementation, high cost, and ultimately, HORRIBLE SUPPORT.

Re:Bluetooth is dead by emorphien · 2004-08-31 09:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, unfortunately a lot of them have not been very cheap though.

--

Presently here, but not there.

Re:Bluetooth is dead by RapmasterT · 2004-08-31 09:35 · Score: 1

The short range may have something to do with it Be careful bashing technology you don't really know about. Bluetooth by specification has a range up to 100 meters, not exactly "short range" by most peoples use of the term. I use a bluetooth router at home for LAN access on my iPaq and some quirk of how the signals penetrate walls gives me better range on Bluetooth than I get on WiFi.

Ericsson and SonyEricsson (was Re:Might not be bad by boster · 2004-08-31 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm a little fuzzy on the relationship between Ericsson and SonyEricsson.

Ericsson is primarily a telecom network infrastructure company. They make, for example, the base stations for wireless networks. They used to make handsets but haven't for a long time. It's not part of their core business.

They long ago entered into a 50/50 joint venture with Sony, called SonyEricsson, to make handsets -- what with Sony being a consumer electronics giant and all.

--
Madness takes its toll. Exact change please.

uhhh, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 09:41 · Score: 0

SonyEricsson is a major supporter of Bluetooth technology, will this have a huge impact on its adoption?

what Bluetooth adoption?

Impact on BT adoption by rjamestaylor · 2004-08-31 09:46 · Score: 1

What adoption?

Rather, it is the lack of adoption that lead to the closing of Ericsson's BT division, doncha think?

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

SE is making a comeback by r_cerq · 2004-08-31 09:49 · Score: 1

... and has been for the past 18 months or so. My last Ericsson was "upgraded" in 1997 to a Nokia. I then used Nokias until late 2002, a Treo for about a year, a Siemens S55 for a few months, and I'm now the proud owner of a SE T630.
I stopped using Ericssons because they were ugly as hell, and the software basically stopped in time. Nokias had a fast development pace and were feature-crammed for a few years, and took over most of the European market.
But since the latest mobile phone tech-overhaul early last year (color displays, PDA features, cameras, MMS, and so on), Nokia appearently got lost. Their phones didn't keep up, so small players (including SE) took over. Siemens and SE are eating Nokia's market-share fast

Why "except" power? by rjamestaylor · 2004-08-31 09:50 · Score: 1

Intelligent wireless energy transmission should be developed. Unfortunately I have a tennis game, or I'd help out, but good luck and all.

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

Promotion and standardization... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 10:00 · Score: 0

While Bluetooth might be a standard, it's too expensive. If you want it to be widely available, and popular, it has to be inexpensive.

So far, anything with bluetooth is not cheap...

Re:just like infra-red ports on everything.... by charliekowalchuk · 2004-08-31 10:00 · Score: 1

Yes, thanks for finding the handful of devices that do not implement IRDA, now it can be said

Except for those devices listed above, all other laptops, cell phones, and PDAs use IRDA

Seriously, almost every new laptop has IRDA (its so trival that most of them forget to mention it as a feature, both laptop and cell phone)

To be noted by MC68040 · 2004-08-31 10:14 · Score: 1

Sony Ericsson only pulled it's division that develops bluetooth software & hardware for licensing. They still support the actual standard, and have a department that works with implention of it in it's own products.

Re:To be noted by barbazoo · 2004-08-31 20:27 · Score: 1

Sony Ericsson =/= Ericsson

Wireless desktop is lame by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 10:15 · Score: 0

because everything needs recharged. I'd rather have a corded mouse, keyboard, speakers, headset than ones I have to put into half a dozen cradles once a week.

Dumping BlueTooth by erc · 2004-08-31 10:21 · Score: 0

I certainly hope so. What the world doesn't need is both 802.11 and Bluetooth. It's stupid to have two competing wireless protocols that are completely incompatible with each other.

Bluietooth is useless. Get rid of it, and embrace 802.11.

--
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu

Re:Dumping BlueTooth by praxis · 2004-08-31 13:39 · Score: 1

The problems that 802.11 and Bluetooth solve, although they might overlap in some areas, are really two different classes of problems.

Just bought a phone in Japan by Ragetech · 2004-08-31 10:32 · Score: 1

I just bought one of the latest phones Sony Ericsson phones in Japan and no Bluetooth. In fact, the only phone that had Bluetooth (from AU KDDI) was from Toshiba, and it was not a bi-lingual phone so I had to return it.

I sincerly hope Bluetooth is not on the way out. Sony is always trying to cut costs, they've been having a rough time so maybe we shouldn't read too much into this.

Aftermarket Bluetooth stereo? by Cinematique · 2004-08-31 10:40 · Score: 2, Funny

I've been wondering... does anyone make an after-market stereo with Bluetooth speaker muting? Anything close??

Re:Aftermarket Bluetooth stereo? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 20:14 · Score: 0

That is a cool idea. You want to use it as part of a general computer-controlled "atmosphere" control for home use/automation?

Wicked.

Phone rings. You answer it. Music goes mute for the duration of the phone call.

This given certain assumptions of course.

Verizon and BT? by m0rningstar · 2004-08-31 11:00 · Score: 1

Verizon actually has a BT phone; the V710. They came out from Radio shack early this month and are now available via VZW stores.

I have one; as many people mentioned, the tech is /great/ with a headset. Sadly, the current version of the phone appears to be pretty cripped, limited to DUN and headset -- my Palm T2 doesn't talk to it yet, though there are rumours of an upgraded f/w for the V710. The phone is also, compared to the GSM BT, a touch bulky, but not enough that it's an issue for me. YMMV. There's a HUGE discussion on this thing over at Phonescoop.

However, living in NM AND with a job that requires me be outside of Abq/SF/Las Cruces enough, I can't effectively use a GSM carrier. Combined with corporate choice of VZW as a carrier and the cheap in-network stuff, I'm just happy to get SOMETHING with BT.

And, as mentioned earlier, it's great just for the headset. At least, to an admitted gadget freak like wot I am.

Yes, ERICSSON drops bluetooth by tesmako · 2004-08-31 11:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Indeed this is correct, Ericsson, a company that makes neither handsets nor bluetooth peripherals are dropping their division for the Bluetooth standard.

Ericsson, and note that while Ericsson does own half of SonyEricsson it does not itself make phones anymore, were a big initiative-taker in the Bluetooth standard, which is why the division was kicking around for so long after the company really lost all reason to deal with Bluetooth itself. This is a huge non-event. It will affect Bluetooth in no way.

"you saw it coming" - right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 11:37 · Score: 0

hey folks, we have a fucking genius in our midsts

WOW - who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 11:40 · Score: 0

or should I say ,not enough care

I' m left handed, blow me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 11:44 · Score: 0

I mean it. The world doesn't revolve around you. Get used to it

Re:I' m left handed, blow me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 20:18 · Score: 0

Like it's any better being left handed, with all the cables going out of the left side of the laptop, where you would usually place your mouse... How does your mouse handle rolling over USB cables?

I love bluetooth.... But... by sr180 · 2004-08-31 12:18 · Score: 1

I love my bluetooth phone, headset and other devices and use them all the time...

Features I love and use all the time

Answer calls with a bluetooth headset, even

when I cant find my phone.

Send SMS' using my pc,

Edit phone book entrys using my pc.

Backups of the phone book and sms' on my pc.

Dialing phone using my pc.

Using my phone as a remote control for the pc.

Problems:

Windows support is very laclusture.

Its confusing for newbies.

The protocols are extremely limited in certain cases, such as I cant use my PDA to dial my phone, and then transfer the call to my bluetooth headset. This would enable me to leave the phone permanantly in the bag, but bluetooth wont do it.

--
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!

Bluetooth is great BUT, by flibberdi · 2004-08-31 12:50 · Score: 1

The thing is, if the implementations of devices wasn't so retarded, there would be heaps of uses for bluetooth. To start with, there should be a sane API for the devices, not only bluetooth-wise, but the environment. If all phones had linux or symbian, or whatever, one could start building all kinds of cool apps for mobile devices but as it is now, the only environment these devices has in common is (usually) j2me, and as you all know, there doesnt really exists to many useful j2me applications, the reason is that all manufactors have their own little implementation of midpx. Try downloading a game (or if you can find a useful app), and you will see what I mean. How is this? Why?? Is it a conspiration of bill&co?? Do Nokia want to rule the mobile world with symbian?? Do MS want to rule the world with pocketPC?? Has SUN completely lost it??

I dont know.

Because it's left for Dead by belswick · 2004-08-31 13:03 · Score: 1

Too bad they gave up, because Bluetooth would have been cool if it had only worked reliably.

I have a Sony Ericsson cell phone with a Bluetooth headset, and a Sony Viao laptop. The headset works with the cellphone about 80% of the time if I'm lucky. The rest of the time, I have to fool around to get them to connect. The cell phone has successfully worked with the laptop on two occasions out of 50 or so attempts.

I haven't tried the headset with the laptop :-)

Bluetooth is not useless. by Stauf · 2004-08-31 13:10 · Score: 1

Lots of people who have never used bluetooth seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions i.e. that bluetooth is dead because noone ever used it and now Ericsson is no longer making chips.

Ericsson's decision is, in fact, an indication of how far bluetooth has come - the standard is set and cheap, taiwanese alternatives are now as good as the stuff E was making, so it's now cost effective for Ericsson to buy in the chips they need.

Bluetooth is now a fairly mature technology, and is used for an awful lot of things, though mostly in the mobile phone market. Bluetooth keyboards and mice are now viable and steady replacements for corded alternatives and bluetooth is slowly becoming a standard on most new mobile phones. Just because you haven't used it, or seen a use for it, doesn't mean that thousands upon thousands don't use it every day - so many in fact that MS included all sorts of bluetooth stuff in SP2.

I'd Hope not by NaiLZ · 2004-08-31 13:13 · Score: 0

Id hope that SE doesnt drop Bluetooth from its cellphone lines. This would be a major blow to the entire bluetooth market.

I used to use a T68i with Jabra BT200 and fell in love with bluetooth from that moment on. I now use a Moto V600 and the Jabra BT250.

Recently even bigger players have also started to adopt the Bluetooth technology such as Dell and Toyota. Many dell laptops come with bluetooth as a option. In the new 2005 Toyota Prius one of the possible options is to have bluetooth for cell phone integration. Since a family member of mine owns one I was able to try it first hand and I have to say the functionality and level of integration is phenomenal.

"think outside the box" is lame, don't you think? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 13:33 · Score: 0

"think outside the box"

Going forward, we need a sea change which will, at the end of the day prohibit anyone from saying "think outside the box" ever again. Anything less than the death penalty would just be rearranging the deck chairs.

Re:Hey Crackhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 16:08 · Score: 0

Coincidentally I need get a socket for my sparkplug. My sears kit (141 pcs) didn't have the right elongated socket size.

18mm it is, thanks!

WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 16:21 · Score: 0

what the fuck does this have to do with bluetooth? what the fuck are you talking about?

and will you please STFU

and BTW, unless he's taking off your sparkplugs with his teeth, rat poison prolly won't do too much.

Frequency Hopping (FH) is NOT Encryption by Alan+Livingston · 2004-08-31 18:28 · Score: 1

Don't expect FH to function as any form of encryption. For unencrypted connections, all the information needed to intercept transmissions between the master and slave is available over the air. There are many BT protocol sniffers available that sniff BT packets over the air.

Bluetooth is a power hog though by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 19:11 · Score: 0

This means that there will never be a low-power bluetooth solution if the R+D stops. If you leave bluetooth on, while using your phone, you will have serious lack of battery life, and some peripherals also have brief battery lives due to... ...the current bluetooth standard.

Some official info from Ericsson by orbios · 2004-08-31 19:44 · Score: 1

From Ericsson's website:
Ericsson reorganizes its Bluetooth operations

Ericsson will discontinue its design and development of new Bluetooth
solutions for the semiconductor industry. A dedicated Bluetooth unit will
be created to support existing customers. In addition, Bluetooth
technology will be offered within Ericsson's offer for mobile platforms.

Ericsson invented the Bluetooth standard, which now is successfully
established worldwide. The standard has now reached a mature state and
Bluetooth products are being produced in large volumes. However, even
though large volumes are manufactured the business case for Ericsson's
design of new Bluetooth solutions is not strong enough.
Ericsson has decided to reorganize its Bluetooth operation and the current
operation for design and development of Bluetooth solutions, Ericsson
Technology Licensing, is going to be discontinued.

Instead, Ericsson will form a dedicated Bluetooth unit to maintain its current
customers. The customer list includes several leading semiconductor
manufacturers. Ericsson's Bluetooth knowledge will be integrated into
Ericsson Mobile Platforms, who will offer Bluetooth software as a part of
their offering.

Ericsson strongly believes in the power and opportunities of Bluetooth as a
technology and will continue to support the technology as a Bluetooth SIG
promoter.
-----
Also, Swedish IT newspaper Computer Swedenquotes Johan Åkesson as saying that '...[Bluetooth] licensing doesn't pay off anymore.' and that future Ericsson efforts will be in Bluetooth software development, in the company Ericsson Mobile Platforms.

Re:Hey Crackhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-31 21:07 · Score: 0

This is a work of art and will undoubtedly work its way into the annals of internet culture.

European/Asian Perspective.... by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-08-31 21:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Those predicting the death of bluetooth seem to usually be those of North American origin. In Europe, and ASia, where phoens are usually subsidised to hell, most "decent" phones being sold have bluetooth functionality. In terms of SonyEriccson, the SonyEricsson T610 is a phone which sold by the buckets, and is still being sold today, despite beign deprecated in favour of the T630, and the more advanced K700i. Other manufacturers are also incorporating the technology.

The reason behind popularity of Bluetooth is many fold:

- In Europe, Bluetooth headsets have REALLY taken off, especially thanks to the heavily enforeced bans on using handsets whilst driving.

- Bluetooth data communications are again increaingly popular (our GPRS systems are much more reliable, and its perfectly possible to conduct an internet session on a laptop, whilst screamign along in a 100mph train.. i know, coz i do that every evening). The phone stays in your pocket, and no messy wires to deal with

- for simple things just as transfering Ringtones, and gaming. People with SOnyEricsson phones easily swap rings and photos with others using BT technology. As well as wireless synch (try using Floats Mobiel Agent with a SonyEricsson phone via Bluetooth to simply blow your mind!)

These are just normal day to day applications of bluetooth. Tech people such as myself, use it even more.

IN my home, despite having a wires and Wireless networks, we also haev 2 USB BT dongles for the computers, a HP Bluetooth Printer, 3 Bluetooth Mobiles and a Headset. I use the headset for both the phone, AND as a wireless headset for VoIP applications on the computer.

In my experience, the technology has matured so well, it simply works. The only issues i have is on the PC side, where bluetooth stacks on the com0puter are either underfeatured, or clunky (dont get me started about MS's implementation in SP2). In all other bluetooth devices, the technology simply "works"

So to go with the parent post, i think the technology has matured enough to the point its possible to simply just make money out of it, there is very little extra that can be done. Why fix it if it aint broke?)

--
Have a nice day!

Absolutely by CBDSteve · 2004-08-31 22:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been very dubious about Bluetooth - but recently I've started to see the point.

Infrared transfers are just not an option, due to poor connection reliability, and I still haven't seen any phones with WiFi capability.

A friend of mine also has a bluetooth handsfree thing in his car, and it's a definite winner. He can leave his phone in his bag, and as long as it's inside the car he can make and receive calls over the speakers / in-car-mic.

Wireless transfer of data might not excite the masses, but this kind of real life advantage does - anyone who's had to manically search for a ringing phone in their car will see the benefit.

Re:"think outside the box" is lame, don't you thin by I_M_Noman · 2004-09-01 00:38 · Score: 1

Going forward, we need a sea change which will, at the end of the day prohibit anyone from saying "think outside the box" ever again. Anything less than the death penalty would just be rearranging the deck chairs.

But that would require a paradigm shift.

Re:Hey Crackhead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 20:21 · Score: 0

It already is. It's a plagiarism of a rant on Craig's List. You can find it in the "Best of" for the Bay Area about 2 months ago.

Slashdot Mirror

Ericsson Pulls Bluetooth Division

273 comments