Why I continue to stand by Bluetooth

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2880959,00.html">http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2880959,00.html</a><br /><br />David Berlind has written an interesting column about Bluetooth, communication protocols in general, and the coming of IPv6. A good read!<br /><br />"Lately, my e-mail inbox has been resembling a bulletin board, thanks to a weeks-old raging thread that started with Bob Frankston's objection to my Bluetooth advocacy. Frankston, and his Software Arts co-founder Dan Bricklin are best known as the co-creators of VisiCalc, one of two software innovations (the other being MicroPro's WordStar) that put the "P" in PC. So, when an e-mail from Frankston asked me to reconsider my enthusiasm for Bluetooth, I dropped what I was doing, listened, and asked questions. Eventually, others were pulled into the thread, including industry pioneer David Reed and, Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) board chairman Mike Foley. Foley is also a wireless architect at Microsoft, playing a key role in the company's Bluetooth strategy." Source: Foo Fighter.

[dbrahms]

If my ipaq 3975 didnt have bluetooth built-in, i'd chuck the whole thing. I got the Bluegear USB bluetooth set (big big mistake) and Bluetooth looked promising. In reality, you're still tied to a nearby PC or access-point...so might as well just go to a real pc and ditch the ipaq for such tasks. I think i'll ditch it actually and go 802.11...it's cheap enough and everyone's saying there are access points posted on www.80211hotspots.com.....here in busy NYC, there's bound to be an access point within range of any major area of the city.

[don dre]

I just got a 3975 and plan on using the T68. I think BT has a lot of potential as a replacement for cables if and when it gets cheap enough. In the meantime, the utility and ease if use of WiFi is great. I had my 3630 on the wifi network and have no plans to swithc to BT. I listen to music mostly in my BR but also use it to sync up to get mail when I'm feeling lazy. Unfortunately, here in Philly our hotspots are limited to hotels. At any rate, I'm looking fwd to BT headphones/headsets for under $100. When I can use my PDA to pay at the grocery store.

[dbrahms]

for me, the biggest advantage BT has is it's "security-by-proximity"...knowing that you have to be really close to my gear to attempt to feed off my data/info, I feel safer. 802.11's range opens you up security issues as it explands the audience that can access your data/info....although I'm sure most 802.11 people have some security in place.

[bitbank]

I think bluetooth is a very young standard that needs Microsoft to give it a push to become something useful. I have several BT devices and the interoperability is extremely poor. For me it is basically a slow nusance that does not serve any purpose except to create frustration or the occasional slow data transfer. The standard is very complex and no vendor seems to implement it in a consistent way. If it is to be considered a wire replacement technology, then lets compare it to the wires it's replacing such as USB.

USB 1.1 (the widely used one) works extremely well. There are some standard device profiles such as keyboards, mice and storage devices that generally don't need additional drivers and work well at the rated speed of 12 megabits per second on most machines/devices. Unique devices implement their own protocol and require a driver. It is plug-and-play in the true sense - hot pluggable and connections are made instantly.

Bluetooth has some standard device profiles, but most are not supported by all manufacturers. The commonly supported profile appears to be "Serial Port". This is very convenient for legacy applications, but goes "against the grain" with the physical layer. The physical layer is a radio link that sends data in packets with an underlying protocol. To pretend that this is a serial port means that any software which uses it will treat it like a serial port and create another protocol layer on top which does not make good use of the underlying physical layer. Add to this the fact that the current spec only allows a maximum of 768 kilobits per second of data (the real world speed is much slower). Here's my summary:

Pros:
Replaces wires
non-line of sight (as opposed to IR)

Cons:
Slow "search" time to find devices in vicinity
Slow data rate
incompatibility between manufacturers
relatively high price (since it is a "new" technology)
no standard programming interface (makes creating software a real pain)
Most programs implement a protocol on top of a protocol making it even slower
More radiation in my face

I think I will wait to see Bluetooth 2.0 before I adopt it for my own use.

Larry B.

[Ce]

I had the opportunity to work with two devices that had bluetooth implemented...the iPaq 3970 and the FSC Loox.
When Bluetooth should be adopted by the public it should be as easy a switching on a lightbulb. Now we have "bonding", "profiles", "classes" different ways to set it up, phones with the wrong firmware, lost connections, soft resets....just horrible.

[mobileMike]

I can't believe this conversation happens over and over again. I am working on an article which I hope provides people with information so they can choose which technology is right for their needs. Simple summary of the article is .... Choose which technology you want to start with and use it for awhile. Then expand into the other technology. Keep both technologies with you, then choose which is best for the moment at hand.

My opinions..........

WiFi's speed is great but is unnecessary if only sending email, AIM, or ICQ.

WiFi is better for intense multimedia like music or video streaming, but both WiFi and multimedia will quickly drain your battery. Buy a spare battery if you can.

Most public wireless networks (free or pay) use WiFi not bluetooth access points.

If you want to connect a PDA and phone, bluetooth is a great solution. Of course PocketPC Phone Edition eliminates this need.

If you are travelling (car, bus, or train), a cellular network is needed to stay connected (Bluetooth is a great way to connect PDA and phone. Of course there is PocketPC Phone Edition.)

If you are away from population (country-side, lake) cellular network is only choice. Do you need to connect your PDA to your Bluetooth cell phone?

If you want to send business cards or files between devices (PDA-PDA, phone-phone, PDA-Phone) bluetooth is a great solution using OBEX. This will be even more important with the arrival of SmatPhones.

Want to setup a quick network, use WiFi AdHoc capabilities.

If you want to connect your PDA to your work computer use bluetooth. Many employers do not want WiFi networks because of their wide coverage area and preceived security issues.

If you have a small apartment and already use bluetooth to connect your PDA to cellphone, spend $40 dollars and get a USB bluetooth adaptor for you PC. Sync, Surf, and more between PDA and PC.

Own a house with a yard maybe near a park, get WiFi. It will provide the coverage you need.

Someday you will be able to have stereo bluetooth headphone+mic. connected to your PDA listening to music. Then with the same headset, accept a incoming phone call from your bluetooth cell phone.
------------------------------

There are reasons for each technology. There is some overlap. If you want the best use both.

- mike

[ppcsurfr]

I don't see why there are people who just don't get it!

Bluetooth has been clear from the beginning. Some people just tend to push its capabilities beond what it is primarily designed for.

As for BT now... I'm extremely happy with what it can offer.

My only advice... Open your eyes beyond what is in front of you. Look around you... look at other countries that are making full use of BT now. They are making more sense than those who are going against BT. They are using it to their advantage and they are letting the developers know what else can be integrated with BT...

BT is not equal to 802.11b and it will never be.

1. BT headsets
2. BT phones
3. BT Pocket PCs
4. BT laptops or PCs
5. BT Printers

What so good? NO Wires!

That is what it's supposed to do. Keep it simple without wires.

Do you want to know how popular BT is here in the Philippines?

It is very popular. What's the top use of BT here? BT phones with BT headsets.

What's next? BT Pocket PCs or Palms with BT phones.

And next to that? BT Pocket PCs synching to BT laptops or desktop PCs.

What is it really? BT is a replacement for that ugly cable.

It's not 802.11b and I bet you you cannot find an 802.11b phone with an 802.11b headset displayed on any store window now.

... I just had to let that out after reading so many 802.11b vs BT threads and articles about BT underperforming.

[Ravenswing]

What I don't understand is this rather odd tendency of BT companies to push BT into the WiFi arena.

BT is a "cable replacement" technology. As such it still leaves a few things to be desired; I probably wouldn't have to mess about with so many configuration pages if I were just plugging in a cable. However, I have a T68 and a BT card in my iPAQ, and the combination works nicely. It's much more convenient than a cable or IrDA.

However, the NETGEAR access point I have upstairs in my house covers the whole house (point of fact, it covers half my street) and gives me Internet access from laptop or iPAQ anywhere in that range. I'd need at least two BT access points to do the same job comfortably, and at lower data rates. Scale that up to an office environment and BT as a network access technology starts to look like a joke. An expensive one at that since BT access points are well over twice the cost of WiFi ones.

I think BT companies should concentrate more on making their technology as trivial to use as a cable would be. Then they can start messing about with invading markets their technology was not designed for.

[Fattizzi]

Bluetooth shouldnt be compared to 802.11. I mean if we do that why dont we compare Bluetooth, 802.11 and InfraRed.

Use Bluetooth the way it is desinged to be used.

-Personal Area Networks
-Cable Replacement

[ppcsurfr]

Bluetooth shouldnt be compared to 802.11. I mean if we do that why dont we compare Bluetooth, 802.11 and InfraRed.

Use Bluetooth the way it is desinged to be used.

-Personal Area Networks
-Cable Replacement

Amen!

I mean... why do those so called "experts" keep on putting these things on the same level?

BT is BT... If you want 802.11b then by all means go out and get an 802.11b setup. Just don't say you got a BT setup and you're having a hard time getting it to perform like an 802.11b setup...