The Death of Bluetooth? 446
Aaron Cherrington writes "Bob Frankston
has written an article
in which he declares that Bluetooth has
failed. The article states that despite the fact it is wireless, it still
has all of the limitations of wires. Is it too early to declare the death of
Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?"
its not dead, but close. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:5, Interesting)
THAT IS NOT WHAT BLUETOOTH IS FOR.
Bluetooth is for personal (that is, on your person) area networking.
It is, by design, a short-range, low-powered protocol. Your mobile phone is a radio with a range of two or three miles...why the hell do you want ANOTHER radio with a range of 30 feet (with the commensurate power consumption which maps directly onto weight) to communicate with a device that should be in your pocket anyway?
Bluetooth, when properly implemented, is great. It's not designed to be the only wireless protocol: It's narrowly designed to do one thing. Replace wires. That, it does well.
The article criticizes BT because it does exactly what it's designed to do. That's silly.
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2, Interesting)
>what it's designed to do. That's silly.
Well, its a stupid non-problem to fix. Whats wrong with wires? Cheaper to implement, fix, replace. Helps keep the phone headset (for example) on your head, where a wire-less implementation would allow it to fall to the floor.
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2, Insightful)
Tom
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they have to be expensive? Of course they don't. It's a wire, with a plastic doohickey on each end. How many mobile electronics vendors are making universal cable systems? With the conspicuous exception of audio headphones, zero.
I hate wires. It's a problem I percieve, and a solution I'm willing to pay for. Therefore, from my perspective, it is good technology.
Re:headphones (Score:3, Funny)
That sort of engineering really irks me.
PDAs (Score:5, Interesting)
Where am I basing my personal observations? A computer science department at a university, of all places. One prof. and one departmental secretary has a PDA, the rest don't. And that's much higher than in the non-CS departments, where absolutely nobody has one. It's the same many other places. My dad's company gave away free PDAs to their engineers, but only around maybe 10% of them actually use their PDAs.
Cell phones have a much greater market penetration.
Re:my point (Score:5, Insightful)
And, fortunately, Apple is here to make a potentially useful technology ubiquitous again.
Just because you don't think the technology is useful doesn't make it not useful for other people. Fortunately, when a market works properly, your needs, and the needs of others, are addressed by different products.
People who only want to make calls will buy a phone that only makes calls. People who want to do other stuff will buy phones that can do other stuff.
What's the point of deriding a system that other people find useful?
So, again, what's your point?
Re:uhh, yes you are (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2)
That problem's not so stupid. That little wire can be a huge PITA.
1.) They break.
2.) They get tangled
3.) That same cable that 'helps keep the headset on your head' actually is the biggest cause of it being suddenly removed from your head.
4.) Every phone uses a different adapater, Bluetooth (in theory) should run on any phone.
As I said, the problem's not so stupid. There are benefits to going wireless wi
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2)
By your argument, a radio with 10 foot (or 3 foot) range is better than the 30 foot range.
Now, there was another poster who noted that there's a "sweet spot" in their apt where they can get mobile service. In that case, it's totally logical to need a longer range wireless headset. But I'd argue that's a different itch, perhaps one better scratched by a longer range (802.11) impl
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2)
The headsets are small and low power. Doesn't suprise me that it couldn't reach more then 15 feet.
My guess is that your phone could reach your headset, but not visa versa.
Of course, you could always redesign the headset and attach a 4AA battery pack to provide enough power for a boosted signal
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:3, Funny)
You could use the battery in your phone to power the headset, just attact a wire.... oh
erm
oops?
Troc
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2)
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2)
That said, I wish Bluetooth had wider acceptance and a bit more in terms of implementation (connecting my phone to my PC, for example, isn't the effortless task is should be...)
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:5, Interesting)
I want:
- my BT headset to interface with my VOIPed home phone
- my BT cell phone to act as a wireless remote control for my TV
- a BT wireless remote to allow separate control over two identical cable boxes (try that with IR)
- a BT keyboard and mouse to interface with my BT smartphone
- to have all my wireless keyboards and mice work with all my computers and all my devices
- to have automatic sync between all of my devices simply by walking up to them
I'll get all of these things with BT because it's low powered, physically small and very cheap to implement in quantity. I'll never get all of these things if I try to get them with 802.11.
TW
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:5, Insightful)
Point-by-point:
- A Bluetooth headset would make a terrible home-phone add-on; I expect my cordless phone at home to at least function throughout the main floor of my house, if not into the yard, basement, etc. With a Bluetooth headset, I wouldn't be able to move more than a few paces from the wired phone line.
- Remote control applications could be good, but again, depending on environmental radio noise, etc., I'd probably prefer for my TV to stick with IR. Of course, I don't really watch TV, so I can't speak to how convenient it is to not have to keep track of a seperate remote.
- As for the Bluetooth remote for two boxes, that's (AFAIK) a hypothetical future product which could be accomplished just as easily with a properly implemented IR system. Again, the radio noise and lack of range would also make me think twice about replacing infrared.
- The keyboard and mouse are definitely a useful thing, whether they're connecting to a phone, PDA, or even a desktop PC.
- See above
- Again, device synchronization is one of the most logical (and already well-supported) uses for Bluetooth. If you (or a friend or coworker) have access to a recent-model Mac, you should check out iSync with the built-in Bluetooth adapters. My roommate has a Sony/Ericsson Bluetooth-enabled phone, a Palm Tungsten T, and a new 12" PowerBook, all of which link up and sync nicely via iSync. (Now, if only T-Mobile would get a clue on their GPRS pricing, we could all start chucking out our old 56k modems.)
As for the size and cost of Bluetooth, well...it's really not significantly cheaper or smaller than 802.11b. They both work on similar frequencies, with similar degrees of signal processing complexity. The main differences come from 802.11b being at least an order of magnitude more powerful a signal, and requiring more processing power to take advantage of the bandwidth it offers (which is about *two* orders of magnitude greater).
For extremely low-bandwidth connection of I/O devices and short-range transfer of compact binary data, Bluetooth has some real potential. Much of it's vaunted simplicity and cost savings, though, are simply industry hype, generated largely by the same companies that are trying to sell Bluetooth chipsets and design services to electronics manufacturers, and those manufactorers who are trying to push consumers to upgrade to the new top-of-the-line models that support it.
Sounds good to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't want a PDA/phone. That means I can't use the PDA and talk on the phone at the same time. And devices that try to comprimise between PDA and phone functions are generally not that good at either.
What I do want is a phone headset that I can use without risk of garroting myself. And I want to browse the web using a portable device I already own and am familiar with: a Palm m515 [palm.com].
If the restriction to Bluetooth applications is, "The phone must be in your pocket, not on your desk," I think I can live with that!
Re:its not dead, but close. (Score:2)
First the Hype, Now the Anti-Hype (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, PHB's read this stuff but not slashdot, nevermind.
Re:First the Hype, Now the Anti-Hype (Score:4, Insightful)
He is dead! (Score:5, Funny)
Come on
He's not dead! (Score:5, Funny)
Killed by his WiFi ;) (Score:2)
Taxi!
Power Consumption (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Power Consumption (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah and with 802.11 you find chalk outside your door and someone has taken over control of your electric nosehair groomer.
Re:Power Consumption (Score:2, Informative)
My BT Headset has 0.0025 Watts of Power
My CF 802.11b has 0.0100 Watts of Power
My T68 Phone has 0.87 Watts of Power
I'll cook my brain with BlueTooth
Re:Power Consumption (Score:3, Informative)
He's dead, Jim. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It's dead. 802.11x is a far better solutioin for most everything. 802.11x offers better speed, range and availabillity. Sure, HP doesn't have 802.11x embedded in its printers, yet. But, once they give up on Bluetooth, you might very well see printers with 802.11x.
Re:He's dead, Jim. (Score:2)
Actually, they kinda do. I just bought an 802.11b JetDirect 680n EIO printserver for my LaserJet 2100 today--HP part number J6058A. So while it isn't embedded, it is internal. Is that close enough?
Re:He's dead, Jim. (Score:5, Insightful)
As already mentioned, Bluetooth is not intended to be a networking technology. It is one up from I-R and one down from Wi-Fi. Its one up to I-R because it allows simple devices, close together, to communicate together, simply, and not need to be in line of sight. It is one down from Wi-Fi because there is no need to use something this heavy duty to transfer simple data, doing so would simply be cost restrictive and over kill - this would be akin to using 4 ton truck for moving a box's worth of paper in your office.
People who understand Bluetooth are using it for things like wireless keyboards, mice and synching PDAs and mobile phone to PCs. Printers are a special case, since in most cases you would want to use Wi-Fi, but by using Bluetooth you allow a simple PDA to print out a document - I suppose printers are pushing Bluetooth to the limits of what it was designed for.
Re:He's dead, Jim. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right that Bluetooth lacks any real security, but by being an ultra short range technology the risk of snoopers, and anonymous at that, is reduced greatly. If someone is snooping, then the person snooping is already within an eye-shot or hearing range. Until encryption can be added without adding to the price of the technology, then it is a risk that should be taken into account.
Comparing apples and oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
Bluetooth could be good for something else - Personal Area Networks (PAN). This would be used for connecting different portable devices without wires. Range would only be a meter or so, and connecting to the Internet would be right out. There is no sense in all devices trying to connect to the Internet, I only need one device to do that and then all other devices connect to *that device* wirelessly.
I wrote a journal entry [slashdot.org] about this very concept.
The point? Yes, Bluetooth is not as good as 802.11 for connecting to the Internet. There is, however, a huge field open for Bluetooth to fill. Unfortuantely, speed and availability seems to limit it.
I would look for Bluetooth-type technologies to take off in the near future, even if not to "connect to the Internet and compete vs. 802.11" The author seems to limit his thining to beleive that the only niche for Bluetooth would be to connect headsets to phones. Think outside the box a little, and Blueetooth has a huge opening and millions of uses.
And to your left... (Score:3, Interesting)
At what point did putting a bunch of PAN devices that broadcast a moderatly high frequency signal all over ones body become a good idea? I know it wouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances, but theres always going to be some very, very gadget-laden people...
Re:And to your left... (Score:2)
Re:And to your left... (Score:4, Informative)
These aren't gamma ray devices we're talking about, not even UV devices... they're long wave devices, which are harmless
Re:And to your left... (Score:3, Insightful)
[smacks own head; rolls eyes]
I was just thinking about how people don't understand this ionizing/non-ionizing radiation. Consider a 100 watt light bulb. How long would it take for you to burn to death at 1 meter? Consider a 10,000 watt light bulb. How long would it take for you to burn to death at 1 meter?
Consider a 1000 watt microwave oven versus a 0.400 watt m
Re:Comparing apples and oranges (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Bluetooth to connect my PDA to my GSM phone. Now I have access to Internet about everywhere through GPRS. I can do it at the restaurant table while dining with friends or while walking on the street when coming back from work. I like it. This is a fine utilisation of a PAN and as long as Bluetooth is faster than GPRS, none of its limitations matter. Low power low distance is acutally an advantage because it reduces the risk of interference. No big deal for now but what if the technology become pervasive?
The reason Bluetooth doesn't take off is it is poorly marketed. It is waaay overpriced to get any widspread adoption.
Seems to miss the point a bit... (Score:4, Funny)
This is nuts. There's a niche for bluetooth. The whole p2p bluetooth PAN-in-your-PANTS thing may sound silly now, but my bag would be a lot lighter if I didn't have to carry so many dangly dongles.
Re:Seems to miss the point a bit... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Seems to miss the point a bit... (Score:4, Funny)
we can jack it to a socket,
but with newey teeth of bluey,
do we need a GUI? Phooey!
Re:Seems to miss the point a bit... (Score:2, Funny)
And fun for the whole family!
Perhaps a little premature... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also heard about things like Bluetooth capable printers which sounds like a great idea.
I don't really see any suitable alternatives to Bluetooth as yet for short range wire-free communication between devices. The only thing that lets it down is the high cost of Bluetooth components in devices - on larger items like printers and expensive mobile phones this isnt too bad, but for smaller cheaper devices it kinda keeps the prices a little high!
Re:from the descriptions, Bluetooth won't help (Score:3, Insightful)
It's quite simple.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that syncing a PDA over the internet or larger distances could be useful, and in that case 802.11 is your man. Bluetooth's goal is to replace short range connections, such as the near-useless IR (ever try aiming a PDA at your phone while as a passenger? I did, and I used velcro for the occasion...)
I was hoping this article wasn't going to be another Bluetooth vs 802.11 non-argument. guess I was wrong.
Re:It's quite simple.. (Score:4, Interesting)
WiFi transmitters can very likely be made to do that as well.
I've also been using WiFi on my laptop, I haven't noticed any reduction on the battery life; compared to the disk or the processor it seems to take hardly any power; cell phones are a different ball game, but just using less power and hence giving lower range seems doable.
Re:It's quite simple.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the power savings come from the fact that bluetooth only transmits about 10 meters at best, while 802.11 can go down the block. Also, bluetooth is much slower, maxing out at around 700kb/s.
Re:It's quite simple.. (Score:3, Informative)
That's precisely the point; the transmitter is lower power, so the batteries last longer.
Also, bluetooth is much slower, maxing out at around 700kb/s.
Yes, but WiFi transmits faster, so doesn't transmit as long. Ten times the power and speed for 1/10 of the time is the same power.
Re:It's quite simple.. (Score:3, Informative)
Funny... I get 3 hours out of my Zaurus and it's 802.11b card.
1.5 if I use the backlight.
either you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about, or you have a really REALLY crappy pda.
Too Early (Score:2)
The author makes good points about the nature of Bluetooth and it's "profiles" can be troublesome and feel limiting, but if they replace my Jabra 200 with 802.11 I doubt it is going to have anymore features than the current headset profile, it will just have a different radio.
Proxim & AiroNet where around fo
very US centric perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Bluetooth is easier to configure and administer than 802.11a/b/g--people can just do it themselves. And Bluetooth has much better battery life and smaller antennas.
I don't understand the reluctance of US cell phone carriers to offer Bluetooth-capable phones--they are not significantly more expensive than equivalent non-Bluetooth phones. I sometimes think that they don't offer it because they want to control how you access the Internet through their networks. With Bluetooth, you can easily and comfortably use your laptop or PDA, and your own software, to access the Internet through your cell phone. IR and wired, OTOH, iareso cumbersome that most people don't bother, if they are even available.
Look for Bluetooth for your next cell phone and PDA. Consider getting a Bluetooth access point for better battery life from your PDA and laptop. Bluetooth isn't expensive and it's pretty nice.
Note that there are long-range versions of Bluetooth (300ft) and that there are high-speed versions in development.
Re:very US centric perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand the reluctance of US cell phone carriers to offer Bluetooth-capable phones...
I don't understand US cell phone carriers in general, they don't actually seem to understand the capabilities of their own kit. They especially don't seem to understand why cell phone usage hasn't changed t he US culture as it has in Europe (and perhaps especially the UK).
The fact that any eight year old over here, who probably owns at least two cell phones if they're British, could tell them doesn't seem to sink in.
Oh well, until you guys finally catch up we can all make lots of money selling you five year old technology that we've all gotten bored of...
Al.Re:very US centric perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Having lived significant amounts of time in both places (US and Europe, Germany to be precise, and there until the end of 2002), I found cell phone usage in the US population, at least where I live, to be about the same as in Germany.
Hmm, maybe I mean changes in the UK culture then, rather than European culture in general, although the Italians are as mad about mobile phones as we Brits...
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, text messages. Must derided on the US side of the pond, here in the UK they have become a way of life, I know people who rarely actually use their phones for voice but send alot of SMS messages. Like email they are something which can be replied to at the reciever convenience (unlike a "proper" phone call) and are extrememly useful in noisy (or public) situtations (pubs, trains, in the car).
Secondly, having spent large amounts of time abroad in countries where mobile phones haven't made such inroads into the population (like the States, and Germany), the concept of "I'll meet you at 7pm on Tuesday night in such and such a place, and we'll do this" has pretty much disappeared. Things like going down the pub, and other social interaction, have become much more fluid.
Also, meeting people in general has become easier, if you're due to meet someone you can send them a text (or even phone them) to say you'll be five minutes late, or could you meet them somewhere else other than the "planned" place. It sounds trivial, but the cultural change is actually quite profound when you come to think about it.
Secondly, mobile data, WAP was a dismal failure even in the UK with mobile phone addicted culture, but "real" mobile data over GPRS is starting to make significant headway, and MMS (multimedia messaging) is actually starting to take off (despite everyone saying it would be another WAP).
Al.Re:very US centric perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Classic example is text messages. I have more talk minutes than I can use for a flatrate, but SMS costs $.20 per message. Considering that speaking is easier, why the fuck would one ever use that? I've been told that the cost structure is exactly the opposite in the UK.
While most people have an allocated number of 'free' text messages if they're on contract, the vast bulk of the mobile phones in the UK are on a pay as you go plan (no contract, you pay for your outgoing calls only and you still get a heavily subsidised handset), and at that point an SMS costs around 5 to 10p (approx. 8 to 16c at current exchaneg rates). Not so different.
Al.Re:very US centric perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost nobody in Europe switches from land line to mobile for cost reasons - most countries have had competition in land lines for at least five years, and land lines are still much cheaper per minute than mobiles, and with lower monthly charges. However, many people prefer to just get calls on their mobile
Bluetooth (Score:2, Funny)
Why Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi (Score:5, Interesting)
If Bob Frankston were writing for an automotive magazine, he'd probably write a subheading 'Why has car business flourished while bikes have essentially failed? Should we even care about bikes?' If you want to connect to the Internet and have wireless access within your house or in the hotel room, use Wi-Fi. But what if all you want is to have devices talk to one another? Remote control to your car computer, telephone handset to the telephone base, PDA to the laptop, etc.? In some cases Bluetooth makes sense more than 802.11b, if you consider cost of deployment and power consumption issues.
Thus Bluetooth is not really a competitor, it's a niche technology that's out there and that's getting more attention from manufacturers. Wi-Fi is immensely bigger and more marketable, but in the nutshell Bluetooth has its own applications and will persist in hardware design for next few years.
BT is great but not universal solution! (Score:2)
"I don't understand it; it can't possibly survive" (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading a while ago that the goal is to make it cost about $1.00 to add bluetooth to ANY device, *including* engineering costs. That might not be here yet, but it's somewhere that 802.11 isn't ever going to go.
The American perspective? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just the American slant on mobile technology showing through again, I think most Europeans wouldn't share the view that Bluetooth is dead. Heck, Bluetooth useage is still growing (quickly) over here.
What I don't get is why the guy is even compaing it with 802.11b? Its not even aimed at the same niche. Bluetooth is so that my laptop, my PDA, my cellphone and my desktop or car onboard computer (and sat nav) can all toalk to each other. The entire point is that its tied to a small radius. I don't want my cellphone trying to use my bluetooth enabled hands free car kit if I'm sitting in my office...
Al.Different goals (Score:2, Insightful)
Bluetooth's range is probably more a result of its power requirements than the protocol itself... you don't want to waste a ton of power connecting a cell phone to a PDA for a low speed link. It's just easier than IR. An application I was reading about would be using a laptop to con
It just never measured up to the hype (Score:3, Insightful)
The sales pitch described how you'd be able to leave your phone in your hotel room and take calls via the wireless headset while sat in the bar downstairs. Sounded great. Trouble was, it took much longer to get any product to market and when they did, it was expensive and the functionality was pretty flawed.
Just like WAP, the marketeers told a great story and just like WAP, the reality was pretty disappointing...
Bluetooth vs 802.11...? (Score:2)
*All* the limitations? (Score:5, Informative)
Except for the *wires* part!
I have a bluetooth headset that I use with my cellphone and it's much more convenient than corded headsets which almost always get tangled and broken.
I have about 4 headsets here with the wires torn out of the earpiece which usually results from the wires getting caught on something while I'm running.
Bluetooth has its place. It's designed for PANs(personal area networks) where WiFi would be way overkill.
Re:*All* the limitations? (Score:2)
With Bluetooth I can leave the phone in my pocket so long as it's turned on, and use the PDA from my hand.
shame (Score:2)
The news of Bluetooth's death is premature (Score:2, Informative)
Um... (Score:2, Funny)
Are these two clauses redundant, or do they say the same thing?
To quote Mark Twain... (Score:2)
Somebody get this guy a Mac (Score:5, Informative)
Bluetooth may not be perfect in its current incarnation, but it's a damn sight better than keying in all my contacts with a numeric keypad, or having to buy a stupid proprietary cable to connect the phone to anything.
~Philly
Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac (Score:2)
Re:Somebody get this guy a Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Bluetooth is great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Having a Bluetooth enabled mobile phone is great. I can upload/download files, synch with my pc etc. With one of those nice file managers for Symbian, and a nice big memory card, it's bliss.
My new Nokia can even play video files. Mmm.. mobile pron.
The article btw, must be written by an American. Over here, there's lots of people using Bluetooth.
Works great.. (Score:2)
I'm sick of people claiming this or that thing is dead, or is going to be dead. As long a
Umm wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
<predictions>
The next technologies we'll see deployed are passive cavity (this is not a pun) resonator circuits (no on-board power) that emit an ID code or do some basic processing on nanopower. Your groceries wont have UPCs, they'll have some little "patch" or "splatch" circuit that'll emit some tiny RF signal when a RF beam is aimed at it. "That'll keep those nerds from constructing a UPC database of our products, and make those CueCats obsolete."
</predictions>
I'm suspecting... (Score:2)
Wait a minute, this "guy" works at Microsoft...RUN FOR YOUR LIVES MICROSOFT BOB IS SENTIENT!
Re:I'm suspecting... (Score:3, Funny)
This article misses an important point (Score:4, Insightful)
Bluetooth is for headsets and keyboards. 802.11 is for connecting hosts. If a device is legitimately a server then it makes sense to put it on 802.11, such as those little webcams with a streaming and/or web server on them.
Old news (Score:2)
Bluetooth has different purpose, nature, etc. (Score:2)
Legendary computer guru Bob Frankston says Bluetooth failed: I'd argue that it still could be saved. Bluetooth required many different pieces to be useful, some of which needed massive investment and retooling. For instance, Microsoft only offers limited Bluetooth features (dial-up networking, cable replacement, input device), so Windows users who try to use Bluetooth may require special drivers for individual devices, and ha
bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion (Score:5, Informative)
I responded (as have many slashdotters above) that surely the two weren't for the same task, and thus were surely destined to exist in parallel, in adjacent market sectors. He told me this wouldn't be true, and his explanation went something like this:
Bluetooth has two main selling points:
But, he predicted, both of these would be eroded quickly. The former would vanish, he said, when both bluetooth and 802.11 are cost-reduced down to single-chip solutions (which now they mostly are). Sure, the 802.11 chip is bigger than its bluetooth buddy, but the cost-differential is pretty slight.
The latter would still apply, but he predicted (and it's come true, although not yet productised) that the 802.11 folks would produce a low-power, short-range version.
So one of Bluetooth's advantages (for its own market) is largely obviated, the latter partially so. Set this against the economies of scale that 802.11 enjoys, and the greatly enhanced oppertunities for interoperation that the dominant standard enjoys, and the "roaming" use of Bluetooth is beaten, resoundingly.
Bluetooth had two other markets in mind:
- as a desktop "wire replacement", for keyboards, mice, etc., essentially replacing the many proprietary protocols in that space, and for stuff for which we now use USB. Bluetooth can't beat USB on cost or performance, which leaves only the mouse and keyboard market. Sure, it would be nice if your digital camera or mp3 player would just "see" the PC without your having to hook up some cables, but the cable burden isn't that onerous. Now, 802.11 may be cheap, but I think it'll be a few years yet before I have an 802.11 mouse. So there is a market there for bluetooth, but it's small, and bluetooth isn't compelling enough to displace the proprietary guys there.
- the true "personal area network", where all the devices I wear interact with one another, and dock to my pc when I sit at my desk. Well, all those devices (PDAs, cameras, cellphones, mp3) have (or are now) converging on a single device (which we call a phone, 'though it is many things besides). This leaves bluetooth with another thin market segment - connecting cellphones to PCs. Again, cheap fast cables, IRDA, and proprietary RF solutions all own this space, and again bluetooth isn't compelling enough to displace them.
Every product has to answer the same challenge - not "are you useful" but "are you useful ENOUGH".Way off article (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who have seen an Apple intergrate with an Ericsson t68i will be convinced that BT is a killer app. It works seamlessly and is so beautifully integrated that I could cry with joy when I get to send an SMS on-screen "just like that".
BT suffers from ONE thing only. Bastard companies that love proprietary devices. Like Nokia. Nokias BT headset twists the BT regulations by transmitting the audio through data profiles, not audio profiles like it is supposed to. So you can't get cheat headsets for Nokia until someone makes a data-only headset. This is killing BT, not lack of usage. BT along with Airport is a marriage made in heaven.
Visit us in Europe, and see that BT is in daily usage mr. Frankston.
BONUS: Try the Bluetooth pic-swap-game! The rules are simple. Be sure to have a cool picture of yourself on your fancy-schmancy phone. Nudeness optional, but recommended. Keep Bluetooth enabled on the phone (Notice how this does not drain your batteries like you were jump-starting an F-16) When bored, search for other phones in public places. When you finde a phone, transmit the picture and it will pop up like a message on the other phone. If the other person is cool and tech-savvy like you, (s)he will transmit a pic back. Yay!
PAN, LAN, and WAN (Score:3, Insightful)
Many pundits in this long line of posts have repeatedly pointed out that bluetooth is intended to be a PAN technology (Personal Area Networking) And that the author is greviously wrong for thinking that bluetooth should be more robust at connecting to the internet.
To these many people, i must say your very very wrong. While bluetooth's focus should certainly be on nothing more than connecting to devices within it's limited range, it should also be VERY high on it's priorities to be highly compatable with the web in any and every respect possible. This functionality will allow bluetooth to gateway beyond it's limited scope. And lets face it folks the idea is to have your cell phone accesible from anywhere on the net given that you have proper authentication.
I should be able to leave my cell on my desk at home, go to work, or a friends, and if i need to connect to it remotly to dig up whatever i want.
The concept behind the address spac of IPv6 (really IPng) is to have address's for every device imaginable no matter how small it's role. And bluetooth would be wise to provide that functionality at least conceptualy. To treat the computer(s) it has access to as gateway's, and to offer it's (authorized) services beyond them or through them. The model for the internet addressing is two-tierd (network/host) and this has been found to be inefficient for the exact reasons why PAN networking needs to be fully functional and logisticly compatible with the entire internet.
Their are already plans and implementations floating around about how to deal with free form routing with wireless objects. Networks that create themselves automaticly... discovering gateways through each other without user interventions... so that if you walk into a room with a bunch of friends, your bluetooth cellphone has already discovered how to access the net through your buddies music player which routes through another cellphone upstairs, which bridges through a 802.11x base station (for whatever reason) which has also dynamicly located a WAN wireless station.
Oh i know the above is plagued with all kinds of technical difficulties at the moment, and some parts are non-sensible, but thats not the idea. The idea is everything is connected to everything else automaticly and wirelessly, while remaining secure... and while utilizing whatever transport medium is appropriate for them. Bluetooth for small close hand devices, 802.11x for LAN's etc.... wired systems for back bone data... and so on...
Where R the MP3 + Bluetooth devices? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have owned Walkmans of every type over the years, high quality, low quality, radios, tape players, CD players. The only exception is an MP3 device.
I have learned my lesson.
For whatever reason on ALL of these devices within a couple months of buying them I break the headphone jack on the device. It will get loose and start to loose the stereo sound and then eventually it won't be useable at all.
I have never had an understanding of what I was doing to break all of them.
But I do know that iPods and the like are way too expensive for me to just break them a month down the road.
A bluetooth iPod and a bluetooth enabled headset seems to me like a killer combination that would resolve that problem.
I am waiting....
Service discovery (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we're just waiting for the killer app. Syncing your cell phone may be fun, and cordless keyboards and mice may be cool, but neither are as big a deal as wireless Internet access on your front porch.
I haven't given up hope, though. Since Bluetooth is cheap and low-power, it's not going anywhere soon.
Schmootooth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Schmootooth (Score:3, Interesting)
I love Bluetooth (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a PowerMac G4, and with the Bluetooth dongle from DLink I sync my contacts between my PC and phone, sync my schedule too (very handy) and also, when I'm around the Mac (as I am a LOT of the time) text messages will appear on the screen instead of the phone, and I can reply via my keyboard (heaven!).
I watch a lot of DiVX on my nice big screen and when I found that I can use as a remote control I was hooked! My Mac now plays music when I come back from a lecture and shuts up when I leave the room. [salling.com]
I love Bluetooth, I use it every day, and NO it is not the same as having cables. Windows users I feel sorry for, as MS seems to be ignoring all this great functionality.
Ok, it's NOT going to revolutionise your life, so STOP EXPECTING IT TO! But it is very handy and useful, and *cheap* too. Which is a big factor.
-Nex
Re:I love Bluetooth (Score:4, Funny)
a. Preview
b. Close tags
Personal area network? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe it. (Score:3, Funny)
more goddam batteries (Score:3, Interesting)
IMMINENT DEATH OF BLUE TOOTH PREDICTED! (Score:3, Funny)
The problem is price! (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's expensive, so it hasn't worked out. Cost is the only real barrier to adoption-- many will gladly pay $10/ device to eliminate wires, but $50 is not a good value proposition. Lower the price, and we'll use it.
All the limitations of wires???? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have to mess around with wires or IR-ports. I can just take the laptop and connect wirelessly.
Then there are the Bluetooth headsets. I don't use those, but they are pretty cool. No need to carry the phone around, all you need is the headset.
The reports of it's death are greatly exaggerated. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is the only vendor I know that ships it in most of their models. IBM's Thinkpads have a few models with it.
And the next device I'd want, the phones are kinda rare. Only one or two and then the plans are either not offered/don't support anything that I would need (national coverage with no roaming fees with a large amount of minutes under $50 a month, Sprint is the only one that offers and so far they have NO bluetooth phones). On top of that, I want PDA functions in a phone with bluetooth. That doesn't exist either.
The next piece I'd want is a headset.
I have my mouse. Of course it only works with Windows/Intel somehow (surprise, it's a Microsoft device)
The problem with Bluetooth is people expect it to have wi-fi range. Bluetooth was something that you could use in an office cube, or a meeting room, and that is it. It's not supposed to solve world hunger or network a 5000 sq ft. building.
Re:I never even knew it took off! (Score:2)
I have never even used a blue tooth enbable device.
Err...
It all seemed a little flakey to me.
If you've never used a bluetooth device, how can you comment?
Also I've had several friends on mac and windows say they simply couldn't get their device to work and if it did work it would crap out on them all the time.
Are these people vaguely technically literate? Basically you're assumption that "I never even knew it took off!" is seriously flawed. Come to Europe, look around. Then reevaluate your
Re:I agree (Score:2)
Re:A wired standard would be more useful to me. (Score:4, Interesting)
For all I know, the USB folks do have such a standard mini-connector.