Where Is Bluetooth?

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://wireless.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,3973,990865,00.asp">http://wireless.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,3973,990865,00.asp</a><br /><br />Three to four years ago, all you heard was "bluetooth this" and "bluetooth that." But it cost too much, so we waited. Now there are all sorts of bluetooth enabled devices, from earbuds to PDAs to printers. No one is buying them though. Well, we geeks are, but no one else is.<br /><br />Do you think bluetooth will really take off or is it a fad that will go the way of networking computers, push technology and clamshell PDAs?

[DubWireless]

every so often when i'm out and about (dublin, ireland) i do a quick BT search - always find a couple of phones and sometimes a PDA or two - sure is more than over a year ago (when it was rare to find even one) - so it's taken off over this side of the atlantic :)

maybe it's because the US only has a small number of BT handsets available - and (so far) only on GSM

[bcre8v2]

For any "standard" to be successful, it must be design for and accepted by the masses.

People don't care how Cell phones work or that there are more than 9 different "standards", they just want them to work. Coverage is the key issue and then vanity.

Infrared (come on you geeks - we've all beamed data between ppc's or laptops), but why hasn't this become more prevalant?

Bluetooth is only "cool" at the most. Yes, it allows interoperability between disparate devices, but it still takes technical know-how to accomplish this.

Until it becomes universally available on all devices and the manufacturing costs come down significantly, it is still "Bluetoothless".

[dbrahms]

i should have saved the $60 price difference on my ipaq. i think i've used bluetooth 3 times on it. the short range is useless for networking purposes. for headsets and such it may be good..but i'm not spending big bux just to have wireless headphones. Speaking of headphones, are there real audio headphones that are BT enabled? I've never seen them...i've just seen the one-ear headphone/mic gizmo.

[Will T Smith]

Bluetooth will take off. Why, it's primarily a replacement for cumbersome
/slow IR communication. It's really not meant to be a high-bandwidth solution. It's meant to be a way of linking a bunch of lower-bandwidth devices together.

Everyone would agree that the market is rapidly moving towards mobile devices be it laptops/tablets or cell phones, mp3 players, PocketPC and GPS devices. Everyone would also agree that networked and always connected devices and applications are becoming a trend. Everyone would also agree that battery life is also VERY important. Now everyone would also agree that Wi-Fi is a certified BATTERY KILLER as the protocol is VERY CHATTY.

In this environment, the ONLY technology that can fullfill these constraints IS BLUETOOTH. There are product-specific technologies available but they don't provide UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY.

Bluetooth's first greatest enemy was over-hype. It's current arch-enemy are folks constantly trying portray it as a competitor to Wi-Fi. With the current economic environment, products have been slower to trickle out. However, we're seeing steady progress. The bluetooth GPS receivers are about the best application I've seen as it truly shows off the versatility of the device since it can connect simultaneously to several devices using GPS.

It's NOT perfect YET. Duhh, most relatively new products aren't. But we're steadily seeing a move in that direction.

The Bluetooth 2.0 spec work should provide the standard with a good promise for the future. Bluetooth is just a tad bit TOO SLOW for some very logical applications. Bluetooth 2.0 should create a good compromise between high-power high performance and low-power/good performance.

Quit dinging Bluetooth. It will mature at it's own rate. I am sure of one thing, you'll NEVER see a Wi-Fi headset. :-)

[bdegroodt]

It's articles like this one that even bring up WiFi and BT in the same story that cause confusion. There's not a bit of relevance in the comparison.

Simply, BT isn't a networking technology. It's a wire replacement technology. Call it a personal network if you must use the work network.

WiFi is a networking technology.

I for one consider it an absolute must for my devices. I will not buy any device any longer that doesn't support it.

Yes BT is a "cool" technology, but I can also remember not so long ago when I was the only person in my circle of geekdom that even knew about WiFi. WiFi wasn't an overnight success (Most things aren't) and BT is coming of age. As the previous poster mentions, there are a lot more BT signals out there now than a year ago and I suppose the same will be said in another year.

[Seraph1024]

I need some help. I can't just go and buy all the toys :)

I have a decent amount of BT stuff but they can be a pain to configure for most people. It's easy for me and really cool but most people who can't even install a program without calling for help would give up on the spot.

L

[questionlp]

i should have saved the $60 price difference on my ipaq. i think i've used bluetooth 3 times on it. the short range is useless for networking purposes. for headsets and such it may be good..but i'm not spending big bux just to have wireless headphones. Speaking of headphones, are there real audio headphones that are BT enabled? I've never seen them...i've just seen the one-ear headphone/mic gizmo.
I was fascinated with the idea of Bluetooth when I first heard about it and thought that it would be a real useful thing to have... but only if you can really afford it. Cell phones with Bluetooth aren't exactly inexpensive and the same goes for wireless headsets. Compatibility seems to be an issue as well, mostly when you have a vendor that provides a Bluetooth adapter but only makes it useful with their own equipment.

I also liked the idea of using a BT enabled cell phone and PDA/laptop to have a wireless Internet connection, but I've been disappointed with the cost of GPRS or other wireless cell Internet connections, or pay per-minute to get sub-4800bps (effective) over a regular GSM call.

Having a BT enabled headphone would be really nice, but only if it wouldn't interfere with WiFi or 2.4GHz cordless phones... and it had decent range. Also, I wonder how good the audio quality would be over BT since you can't exactly transfer CD-quality PCM streams over 3-4Mbps (I can't remember what the maximum one-way BT throughput is).

Just my $0.01.

[igreen]

It will get there. Its beginning to show up in digtal cameras....slowly. Notebook manufacturers are beginning to make it an internal option, as opposed to a add-in PCMCIA option. (Dell's most recent D-series notebooks) As we all know, Dell waits until a trend develops before jumping in.

[bdegroodt]

Compatibility seems to be an issue as well, mostly when you have a vendor that provides a Bluetooth adapter but only makes it useful with their own equipment.


You mean like how a SE phone works with an iPaq? Or a SE phone works with an iBook? Or a Motorola headset works with a SE phone? Or... :evil:

[Janak Parekh]

You mean like how a SE phone works with an iPaq? Or a SE phone works with an iBook? Or a Motorola headset works with a SE phone? Or... :evil:
Well-put. Bluetooth interoperability now is better than what a lot of people think.

As for your previous comment, Brian, I also agree. Do you guys realize how long WLAN technology has been around? Well before 802.11b was standardized. We had it 6-7 years ago here... it wasn't 11Mbps, it was 1Mbps, but it existed and worked. Only now is it becoming mass-market. Give Bluetooth a bit more time!

--janak

[cscullion]

Maybe BT would take off faster if PC manufacturers would get on-board. How about Dell building-in BT support into their desktop boxes, and delivering BT keyboards, mice, and printers? If BT was already part of the basic technology we buy, the market for BT-enabled peripherals would boom (I think).

[questionlp]

You mean like how a SE phone works with an iPaq? Or a SE phone works with an iBook? Or a Motorola headset works with a SE phone? Or... :evil:
Or how you can't use the Bluetooth adapter provided with the Bluetooth wireless keyboards from Microsoft with other Bluetooth-enabled devices. At least, that is what I've heard.

I think most Bluetooth devices will interoperate with each other... just there are some devices that do not fit into the category.

[SeanH]

Bluetooth in the past has been very difficult to design with. Bluetooth uses a very complex Bluetooth stack to set up connections. You also need to include a TCP/IP stack for those that want to surf the net. You need a RF expert to layout the board and you need a simple way to interface to a CPU. This process took many man years in the past to implement Bluetooth. There are new devices like they one used in the HP 5455 from National, the LMX9814. Here is a link

http://www.national.com/appinfo/wireless/0,1822,1007,00.html

This part takes care of all those issues. It’s a very small module 10.1 x 14.0 x 1.9 mm (smaller then a dime). It has a digital system and a RF radio in a module. All the software for the Bluetooth and TCP/IP stack is done license free to the end developer. This part directly ties to PXA255’s serial port (BTUART) and connects directly to an antenna. It uses a series of command to configure connections like a Hayes command set.

The same device could be use in peripherals. Any product that has an RS-232 (serial) interface can be converted to a Bluetooth with this device. This opens up a lot of options for companies developing hardware.

I feel like I am creating an advertisement for National. I do not work for them but I give seminars on semiconductors for a living and when I read about this part I was impressed.

[trachy]

Everyone would also agree that battery life is also VERY important. Now everyone would also agree that Wi-Fi is a certified BATTERY KILLER as the protocol is VERY CHATTY.

Man, Will - you seem just a little passionate about Bluetooth. ;-)

Yes, wi-fi is hungry, but does anyone have any experience with Intel's new Centrino technology? Are they just spinning us with marketing, or does it really curb power demand? If so, any word on the technology eventually migrating to smaller devices?

- Drew

[bdegroodt]

Yes, wi-fi is hungry, but does anyone have any experience with Intel's new Centrino technology? Are they just spinning us with marketing, or does it really curb power demand? If so, any word on the technology eventually migrating to smaller devices?

- Drew

I think it's real. Have a look at the Tech TV write up they did the day Centrino was released. (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/products/story/0,24330,3420531,00.html)

[HTK]

I agree totally on the BT vs WF discussion.
Yes, BT is a wire replacement, but WF sure is too! I don´t care if my wire will need to reach 1 foot or 1 mile, I want a technology to replace it, and this technology should be smart enough to calculate how much energy and complexity it will require for that connection. So, for me, BT is just a eye-opener for WF.

[Paragon]

Guess what?

Bluetooth may just take off...but not in areas that we would normally think of. The auto industry is beginning to embrace Bluetooth, with builtin Bluetooth enabled handsfree systems and the likes. As well they are beginning to use it so different operating systems of the auto itself can communicate with each other....door locks, windows, etc. When you think about it automobiles are a great spot for Bluetooth. They are heavily computerized these days, and with Bluetooth you don't need a million miles of wire running all over the car waiting to short out. :)

Airplanes would be another good spot for Bluetooth as well.

So, maybe Bluetooth will find a home.

Dave

[tulrich]

Maybe BT would take off faster if PC manufacturers would get on-board. How about Dell building-in BT support into their desktop boxes, and delivering BT keyboards, mice, and printers? If BT was already part of the basic technology we buy, the market for BT-enabled peripherals would boom (I think).

Bluetooth would probably take off a LOT faster if anyone knew what it was! Outside of the geek/1st adopter community, I doubt there's many people that even know what it is or that it exists. WiFi has gotten much better marketing than Bluetooth in the US...if hardware developers, wireless carriers, and cell phone handset makers made an effort to tout its advantages, there would be a lot more demand.

It would also help if there was more of a variety of Bluetooth-enabled cellular phones offered in the US.

[Ed Hansberry]

Bluetooth will take off. Why, it's primarily a replacement for cumbersome/slow IR communication.
Another technology the masses don't use. Geeks will love it, those same geeks that use IR, those same geeks that are a very tiny percentage of the population.

I am not knocking BT as a technology. (not here anyway) :twisted:

It is still more hype than reality from a market penetration standpoint.

Go ahead and explain to a normal person why they need bluetooth and they will go "sounds cool but why would I want to do that?"

[SeanH]

Intel's new Centrino technology is a little marketing and a little innovation. Centrino is Intel packaging their existing Intel® Pentium® M processor the newer Intel® 855 Chipset and Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 network adapter. It is lower power because Intel changes voltage and speed (Hz) of the CPU on the fly, that’s the innovation part. The marketing part is that 802.11b is built in. It’s not in the 855 chip set, it’s a separate device. A laptop vendor could choose to use other 802.11x solutions with the Pentium® M processor.

Bluetooth and WiFi both have there place in desktops and PDA’s. One will not win over the other. Bluetooth is great for point to point communication. WiFi is horrible at point to point communication. Here is a paragraph I posted on another discussion group.

A 802.11b network is horrible at point to point communication. This is where Bluetooth shines. For two devices to communicate over 802.11b you need either an access point that does DHCP or you need to set up an ADHOC connection between the two devices. The disadvantage of the access point is that it needs power, it’s a third device and it has to be configured to operate. The ADHOC setup is worse, you have to make up an IP for both devices then change both devices to operate on the same channel. There is not a method with 802.11b to make two devices negotiate that info when the two devices are close. I have not seen a DHCP server for PPC yet. Bluetooth does all this so well.

[bdegroodt]

...The marketing part is that 802.11b is built in. It’s not in the 855 chip set, it’s a separate device. A laptop vendor could choose to use other 802.11x solutions with the Pentium® M processor.

Sean- It's my understanding that if a vendor uses other than an Intel 802.1x chip, it no longer qualifies under the Centrino brand name. That your understanding as well?

[SeanH]

bdegroodt

Yes I am sure that’s true. The laptop vendor could no longer say it’s a Centrino enabled laptop. Intel does market Centrino as great new technology that brings low power and WiFi to the laptop. All they really do is bundle chips they already have and market the hell out of it.

Sean

[freitasm]

You mean like how a SE phone works with an iPaq? Or a SE phone works with an iBook? Or a Motorola headset works with a SE phone? Or... :evil:
Or how you can't use the Bluetooth adapter provided with the Bluetooth wireless keyboards from Microsoft with other Bluetooth-enabled devices. At least, that is what I've heard.

I think most Bluetooth devices will interoperate with each other... just there are some devices that do not fit into the category.

But that was Microsoft's decision to go-to-market with a hype approach. So fast that they decided not to implement other profiles, only the bare minimum needed to allow discovery and serial connection.

Shame on the implementation, not the technology. The product says it all "Microsoft Mouse" and "Microsoft Keyboard". It's a proprietary implementation of the standard.

[SeanH]

bdegroodt wrote

My PDA Graveyard-T-Mobile PPC PE, Ipaq-3870, 3650, Palm-i705, M515, V, Pilot 5000 & 1000, Handspring Visor Edge w/phone, Xircom REX, HP Jornada 720, BlackBerry 957. May they rest in peace.

My PDA/Phone graveyard is a trunk mount NEC phone that moved from car to car from 1985 until 1997 (12 years) then I upgraded to a Nokia 6160 that is still working great (6 years). My first PDA was a Palm Pro that I bought in 1995 (5 years). In 2000 I upgraded to PPC with an iPAQ 3630 (3 years) and its still working great. Someday there will be a PDA with 802.11x, Bluetooth, GSM/GPRS or CDMA 2000 all in one device with a open SDIO slot. Then I might upgrade.

[bdegroodt]

...Someday there will be a PDA with 802.11x, Bluetooth, GSM/GPRS or CDMA 2000 all in one device with a open SDIO slot. Then I might upgrade.

That can't be that far off. At least on the GSM side. I wish for the CDMA side of that myself. I'd be a happy camper on a Verizon line right about now if it was the same setup I have on my T68.

[daS]

Well you must have known that I'd weigh in here. :mrgreen:

This Ross Rubin seems to just be one of those guys that thinks he sounds superior if he knocks something down. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about with the proof being in his own statement:

Wi-Fi is a generalist technology whereas Bluetooth is the specialist in linking to cell phones.

Wi-Fi is a generalist technology????? 8O What in the world is this guy smoking? Wi-Fi is an excellent technology, but for only one thing: Ethernet wire replacement. That's all. One application. How is this a generalist technology? On the other hand, Bluetooth is a poor Ethernet wire replacement (although it can do it, Wi-Fi is better at it) but Bluetooth has a huge assortment of applications.

While I would agree that the most common application for Bluetooth is currently linking to cell phones, everything from GPS receivers to industrial robots are adding Bluetooth.

As someone else pointed out, my company paid $4000 for a point-to-point wireless bridge back in 1996. It connected our offices with an ISP a block away. The devices were purchased in pairs and had to be replaced with upgraded 802.11 radios a few years later. The new ones still wouldn't work with someone else's equipment. Now we have Wi-Fi and life is good. But was this guy Rubin saying in 2000 that 802.11 bites?

:soapbox: If you want the real story, then read my editorial on Bluetooth and industrial automation which will appear in a day or so on www.BluetoothNews.com. I may not be a senior analyst at eMarketer, but after 9 years in the handheld and wireless industry, I may actually know what I'm talking about.

[Janak Parekh]

As someone else pointed out, my company paid $4000 for a point-to-point wireless bridge back in 1996. It connected our offices with an ISP a block away. The devices were purchased in pairs and had to be replaced with upgraded 802.11 radios a few years later. The new ones still wouldn't work with someone else's equipment. Now we have Wi-Fi and life is good. But was this guy Rubin saying in 2000 that 802.11 bites?
No, he, like everyone else, had no clue. And still doesn't, IMHO. ;)

:soapbox: If you want the real story, then read my editorial on Bluetooth and industrial automation which will appear in a day or so on www.BluetoothNews.com.
Well, submit it as news, and I'll post it as the counterexample to Ed's post. :)

--janak

[bbarker]

Bluetooth needs the following to succeed in the general market: A name that describes what it is. "Bluetooth" means nothing to the average person.

Lower priced products. Verizon was selling only one Bluetooth product when I was last in a store: an expensive wireless headset. It cost more than most of their phones. Few people will buy something like that. So Verizon gets the idea that Bluetooth is a failure and nobody wants it. They haven't tried giving me a Bluetooth-capable phone.

Strong marketing for products that people want.

[Jonathan1]

...The marketing part is that 802.11b is built in. It’s not in the 855 chip set, it’s a separate device. A laptop vendor could choose to use other 802.11x solutions with the Pentium® M processor.

Sean- It's my understanding that if a vendor uses other than an Intel 802.1x chip, it no longer qualifies under the Centrino brand name. That your understanding as well?

Intercept....Yes. If a vendor does not use the total "package" Intel offers they can not use the Centrino branding in which case all they get is the pretty Pentium M logo instead. There have been a handful of vendors that have been doing just this since the WIFI offered by Centrino sucks compared to some of Intel’s competition. 40% marketing 60% innovation.

[daS]

Bluetooth needs the following to succeed in the general market:

I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some:

A name that describes what it is. "Bluetooth" means nothing to the average person.
I disagree with this one. The name really doesn't matter. Do most people know what VCR means? How about BMW? (Sorry Ed :) ) USB? Pentium? The names don't matter once people know what the product is. Actually I think Bluetooth is a better name than the three letter acronyms (TLAs) that don't have a catchy sound to them. Ultimately, it will be the ease of deployment and the capability that will determine the success, not the name.

Lower priced products. Verizon was selling only one Bluetooth product when I was last in a store: an expensive wireless headset. It cost more than most of their phones. Few people will buy something like that. So Verizon gets the idea that Bluetooth is a failure and nobody wants it. They haven't tried giving me a Bluetooth-capable phone.
While I agree this is a big problem for Verizon customers (and they are the largest carrier in the USA) Verizon is a bad example since I think they are the most backward carrier in the world when it comes to Bluetooth.

Bluetooth is much more popular in Europe than in the USA because GSM phone makers include Bluetooth in almost every model - other than the cheapest ones. Since you can put any SIM card in any GSM phone (if it's not locked by the carrier) the carriers have less control over GSM phone designs than CDMA carriers. Without the ability for the consumer to select the phone they want, CDMA carriers like Sprint and Verizon dictate every aspect of the phones they offer. Sprint is finally going to offer one model with Bluetooth (from Sony-Ericsson) this summer, but Verizon - being smarter than everyone else, has specified a similar phone but without Bluetooth. :evil:

So while Verizon may have the most built-out network, if you want Bluetooth you'll need to find a more visionary carrier. Maybe number portability that's coming in November will cause Verizon to catch up on this one.

Strong marketing for products that people want.
I'm not sure what you have in mind here. Personally I think that Bluetooth needs to be easier to configure and (other than cell phones) it needs to be a lot cheaper. Once these two things happen, I think that companies will start incorporating Bluetooth in most consumer electronic products like printers, PCs, PDAs, MP3 players, etc. Like USB it won't need to do its own marketing, the manufacturers will do it themselves.

[Hank Scorpio]

I bought a usb adapter and hooked it up to my XP machine, and I couldn't get them (my t68i and my computer) to talk to each other, they could see each other but that's about it. I went to my brothers plugged it into his Mac, and boom, they're together, you wanna sync ical, done, you wanna do this, done, it was crazy, that's what I want bluetooth to be like, there's even a little program on the mac that if I walk 30 feet (or whatever the range is) away from the mac it'll turn the machine off, or it'll turn on itunes whatever you tell it to do, it's everything I wanted it to be but it's on a Mac, and I don't have a Mac.

[EricMCarson]

Bluetooth appears to be coming mainstream, quickly. Chrysler is including UConnect, a built-in bluetooth two way audio solution integrated in the stereo in the new Pacifica, and it will be available in all 2004 vehicles. Remembers 5 different bluetooth phones and stores a voice dial phone book. This type of implementation will drive bluetooth adoption. I have always thought that the car hands-free would be a fantastic bluetooth implementation.

Just imagine if all of those cars that come pre-wired for Motorola only handsets instead came "pre-wireless" with bluetooth for universal connectivity with any handset...

Bluetooth is coming mainstream, and it looks like the automobile will be the first conquering.

[SassKwatch]

Bluetooth will take off. Why, it's primarily a replacement for cumbersome/slow IR communication.

Good grief. If that's BT's 'niche', it's a mighty small one.

[EricMCarson]

Bluetooth will take off. Why, it's primarily a replacement for cumbersome
/slow IR communication.

Bluetooth will take off, I agree. However, it's because it frees us from those six foot cords we have been choking ourselves with for years since we bought into the "mobile" promise, including the reason that we need to "stay connected" all the time. IR communication never helped with the wires we carried around, particularly if you were in a bright room, or couldn't properly align the IR transcievers.

[GregWard]

I've said this in another thread but my frustration remains. When the heck will the Smartphone Manufacturers wake up to Bluetooth? You do now tend to see BT in top end PPC and often in mid to hi range phones. Great for a two-box mobile solution. But what if you want a one box solution and you want a car kit or a hands free?

I've just been looking at the specs for the new Samsung PPC 2002 Phone (www.samsung.com/cebit for anyone who hasn't seen it). It looks good - I might be tempted when it arrives in the UK. BUT - from what I can see - no Bluetooth. So - forget it Samsung - you just blew a sale for the sake of a couple of bucks.

I can't believe I'm alone in this. To be honest I don't care what the technology is (BT/WiFi/Pigeon Post) I just want a one-box solution that will work as a replacement phone - that HAS to include working in my car which HAS to mean handsfree as a minimum or Car Kit (preferably).

What ever the strengths of WiFi as a networking capability I have seen no other developments. I understand this to be the flip side of the greater power (therefore size and cost) of the WiFi standard. I agree with the previous comments about BT being "geeky" at the moment - but it won't be if the standard is there in many different devices and "just works".

If BT as an genuine interoperable standard really emerges then the consumer wins and will start to use - even without knowing what it is! The Smartphone manufacturers will win - for example they will immediately be able to tap in to BT capabilities like the Parrot Carkit, Jabra Headsets etc. Nokia will be a big loser as it will trash their ability to rip the consumer off by forcing them to buy new carkits/headsets etc each time they upgrade their phone :lol: :lol:. Probably why Nokia BT doesn't work well with anybody else's!!! :devilboy:

[Rob Alexander]

Intercept....Yes. If a vendor does not use the total "package" Intel offers they can not use the Centrino branding in which case all they get is the pretty Pentium M logo instead. There have been a handful of vendors that have been doing just this since the WIFI offered by Centrino sucks compared to some of Intel’s competition. 40% marketing 60% innovation.

Dell seems to get around this nicely. They use the Centrino label and include Intel's Wi-Fi as the default, but then they also offer to upgrade it with their own 802.11b/g product at no charge. It's a clever way of having the Centrino marketing support while still offering a better Wi-Fi solution to your customers.

[freitasm]

I bought a usb adapter and hooked it up to my XP machine, and I couldn't get them (my t68i and my computer) to talk to each other, they could see each other but that's about it. I went to my brothers plugged it into his Mac, and boom, they're together, you wanna sync ical, done, you wanna do this, done, it was crazy, that's what I want bluetooth to be like, there's even a little program on the mac that if I walk 30 feet (or whatever the range is) away from the mac it'll turn the machine off, or it'll turn on itunes whatever you tell it to do, it's everything I wanted it to be but it's on a Mac, and I don't have a Mac.

In this case have a look at floAt's: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=153. It'll do this for you. For syncing I use the Sony Ericsson Extended Connect, works very well - are you sure you have the devices paired? Also, in the Phone Monitor you have to disable all com ports and enable exatcly the one used as Bluetooth client. After this, manually open a connection to the phone, close it, and it should work from there on...

[GregWard]

I bought a usb adapter and hooked it up to my XP machine, and I couldn't get them (my t68i and my computer) to talk to each other, they could see each other but that's about it. I went to my brothers plugged it into his Mac, and boom, they're together, you wanna sync ical, done, you wanna do this, done, it was crazy, that's what I want bluetooth to be like, there's even a little program on the mac that if I walk 30 feet (or whatever the range is) away from the mac it'll turn the machine off, or it'll turn on itunes whatever you tell it to do, it's everything I wanted it to be but it's on a Mac, and I don't have a Mac.

In this case have a look at floAt's: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=153. It'll do this for you. For syncing I use the Sony Ericsson Extended Connect, works very well - are you sure you have the devices paired? Also, in the Phone Monitor you have to disable all com ports and enable exatcly the one used as Bluetooth client. After this, manually open a connection to the phone, close it, and it should work from there on...

This is also where BT may not always be the best solution. There's a good usb connector for the T68 made by Mobile Action (part number MA-8910C) mine came with sync software as well. Not only does it sync and allow the T68 to act as a modem it charges the phone at the same time. Particularly useful when you're travelling as you can leave the phone charger at home!!!

[Ramin]

Go ahead and explain to a normal person why they need bluetooth and they will go "sounds cool but why would I want to do that?"

Ed, I don't seem to have much trouble convincing wireless newbies that Bluetooth is in fact a practical cable replacement solution... Everyone I've met who has witnessed my iPAQ H3870 (w/ Running Voice GSM) & my T68i/HBH-30 combo would love to have something like it. 8)

However, Bluetooth products (headsets, handsets, PDAs) are still very expensive because mainstream manufacturers seem to price these solutions as a high end niche products. :(

Also, I believe that Bluetooth could have had more support from mainstream vendors like Dell, Microsoft, Intel, Nokia etc. :?

For instance, Dell didn't opt to integrate Bluetooth functionality when it released the Axim X5 Advanced (although Compaq/HP had released the Bluetooth iPAQ H3870 since 2001). Integrating the WIDCOMM Bluetooth solution into the Axim wouldn't have been particularly costly for Dell, if you consider the volumes that the company distributes.

Nokia have made a mess of Bluetooth by doing some weird proprietary thing with their phones (e.g. Nokia 6310/7650/3650) which aren't fully compatible with other Bluetooth products. Don't blame Bluetooth... but rather, question Nokia's motives/competence.

Microsoft themselves have failed to lend strong support in the critical early stages of Bluetooth's development and their current half-hearted attempts with their latest Bluetooth stack shows that their attitude hasn't changed very much. :(

Even Intel didn't show much enthusiasm in making Bluetooth an affordable mainstream solution, choosing to support HomeRF in the early days - Refer to http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14233.html

I think the public would have loved to have something like Bluetooth, but the industry giants were just too slow to meet the demand and develop the cost-effective solutions quickly enough to make Bluetooth a great success.

However, I feel that WIDCOMM & Ericsson have done a great job with Bluetooth and it's now heartening to see companies like Apple getting behind the standard which they have dubbed "wireless USB". 8)

Ed, do you really want to carry an ActiveSync cable around for your HTC Falcon (O2 XDA) all the time? :wink:

[bdegroodt]

I've got it! I know how to save Blue Tooth and make the masses love it. PORN! Just like the, VCR porn will save the day, again! :twisted:

[Ed Hansberry]

Go ahead and explain to a normal person why they need bluetooth and they will go "sounds cool but why would I want to do that?"

Ed, I don't seem to have much trouble convincing wireless newbies that Bluetooth is in fact a practical cable replacement solution... Everyone I've met who has witnessed my iPAQ H3870 (w/ Running Voice GSM) & my T68i/HBH-30 combo would love to have something like it. 8)

Here is my point. How many cables does the average person have that they give a flip about?

1 - that's it. Their mouse cable might get in the way sometimes. Once you hook up your keyboard, printer, scanner and a few USB items, you never touch those again.

Ok, now for the geek-leaning population that has a PDA. They think their PDA is wireless because it has a battery. :wink:

Now for the really geeky - us. We want bluetooth to rid us of tons of wires and enable internet access anywhere with our phones.

So I guess my point is, tell people that BT lets them get rid of wires. Now tell them to show you the wires they hate and would like to get rid of. Chances are, they will point to the mouse and that's about it. That is why BT is very much a niche product.

[hollis_f]

It would be very helpful if everybody responding to this thread had some details of their location - just the country would do. Then I think we'd see quite a split, with many more BT supporters in Europe than from the US. In the UK most people have heard of BT, and a fair few of them also have a vauge idea as to what it does.

I've said this many times before - the best way for BT to really hit the public is to aim between the ears. A stereo BT headset (with at least semi-decent sound quality) hooked up to a BT enabled MP3 player would, IMNSHO, really attract the non-geek.

[bdegroodt]

Here is my point. How many cables does the average person have that they give a flip about?

1 - that's it. Their mouse cable might get in the way sometimes. Once you hook up your keyboard, printer, scanner and a few USB items, you never touch those again.

Ok, now for the geek-leaning population that has a PDA. They think their PDA is wireless because it has a battery. :wink:

Now for the really geeky - us. We want bluetooth to rid us of tons of wires and enable internet access anywhere with our phones.

So I guess my point is, tell people that BT lets them get rid of wires. Now tell them to show you the wires they hate and would like to get rid of. Chances are, they will point to the mouse and that's about it. That is why BT is very much a niche product.

Maybe Ed. Maybe not. The fastest growing segment of the PC market is the "desktop replacement laptop." It's a real pain to have to connect a USB hub, power, printer, PDA, mouse & external keyboard when you're at your "workstation." Sure, you can buy a docking station and minimize this, but why should I be cheated out of desktop real estate when a perfectly good technology exists to take care of that problem?

[daS]

I've said this in another thread but my frustration remains. When the heck will the Smartphone Manufacturers wake up to Bluetooth? You do now tend to see BT in top end PPC and often in mid to hi range phones. Great for a two-box mobile solution. But what if you want a one box solution and you want a car kit or a hands free?

Well I'm not a one-box fan simply because there are times when I only want to carry a really tiny phone and no PDA. However, I certainly can see the other side of this issue and agree with you that the lack of Bluetooth in every current PPC Phone is a major flaw.

The good news is that TI has a reference design that they were showing at CTIA called WANDA. I wrote a brief overview on our site here: http://www.bluetoothnews.com/industrynews/TI_Wanda.htm

The bad news is that we will have to wait for an OEM to pick up on that reference design in order to ever see this cool phone.

[bdegroodt]

The bad news is that we will have to wait for an OEM to pick up on that reference design in order to ever see this cool phone.

The PocketPC Thoughts WANDA! I like it! Free mobile access to all buyers (With one year service contract and credit approval. $350 early termination fee. See Jason Dunn for complete details.). :D

[daS]

Here is my point. How many cables does the average person have that they give a flip about?

1 - that's it. Their mouse cable might get in the way sometimes. Once you hook up your keyboard, printer, scanner and a few USB items, you never touch those again.
It starts with the phones: Many countries in Europe and a few states in the USA are banning cell phone usage in vehicles except if you use a hands-free unit. Bluetooth is ideal for this application.

Once people see how this works, then they will see some of the other uses. For the average non-PDA user, I think the next most common application is one that is not too popular yet - printer cables. As laptops become much more common, people end up in locations where there are printers, but they don't have access to them. When Bluetooth becomes a standard feature of both printers and laptops (and it will) then the average person will become accustomed to walking into an office, home, etc., with their laptop and discovering the Bluetooth printers available. I think this will be the first mainstream computer application for Bluetooth.

The final one that is really cool, but is currently nonexistent, is the ultimate portable phone. This is a combination of a Bluetooth enabled cell phone and a home (or office) phone with Bluetooth. When you are within range of the basestation your cell phone works as a "cordless" handset for your wireline phone. But once you get out of range, the handheld uses the cellular system to make a call. This gives you one handset to carry around both at home and when you're away!

This is all really cool stuff 8) - and all for the unwashed masses.
:wink:

[D.psi]

Okay, here's my thought. Glance down to my signature... I believe that from the total market share for any technology, most of the folks who buy anything will buy it from their disposable income. In the geek-industry (high tech, and the like), the percentage of disposable income is high. Most other industries p'bly have lower % of disposable income leading to their running whatever they buy into the ground.

How many people replace their VCRs on a yearly basis? TVs? My point is that the same applies to consumer electronics, other than PCs. Computers are an unusual data point, in that the industry forces obsolescence at an 18 month rate. Again here the geeks will match this technology refresh rate, but most other users will be slower to refresh their technology.

My handheld does not support BT, or Wi-Fi. It won't until its condition has deteriorated to the point of uselessnes... And maybe it still won't after that. The "masses" will adopt BT when the technology is broadly available, and their "need" to replace the host device has come. I'm not about to replace my Jornada because BT has become available. But if my screen happened to die, and I could pick up a device with BT at a reasonable cost, then I might get BT technology in my hand.

Am I that odd of a consumer? Does the general population go and replace their consumer electronics because a new gizmo is available? I'm guessing that broadly speaking, no. Once they have an entry to a given technology (DVD, VCRs, CD player, etc...), they will stick with their initial purchase until they have a substantial reason to upgrade.

D.psi

[jffcurt]

I have both Wi Fi and bluetooth in my house. Although I favor the quickness of 802.11 I must say I do use my bluetooth devices quite often. In fact I'm on vacation in L.A. as we speak and I'm writing this to you on my 5455 using my T68i as a bluetooth modem and it's working quite well. I also have a bluetooth access point at home that doubles as a print server which I use frequently( I will admit that is the main thing I use if for). While we may not see a proliferation of bluetooth devices being used today I can honestly say I have quite a few friends that don't know what Wi Fi is.

Jeff

[daS]

Does the general population go and replace their consumer electronics because a new gizmo is available? I'm guessing that broadly speaking, no. Once they have an entry to a given technology (DVD, VCRs, CD player, etc...), they will stick with their initial purchase until they have a substantial reason to upgrade.
I agree with you. For this reason, Bluetooth will slowly continue to gain traction.

It is an enabling technology like USB. As you point out, the average consumer did not run out and buy a new computer just because it had USB. Instead, when the time came to upgrade, whatever computer they purchased had USB ports. The same is true for their next printer purchase, etc. Slowly, each device had more USB support and less legacy interfaces.

This will also happen with Bluetooth. Slowly, HP, et. al. will include Bluetooth in their printers. Currently HP only has two printers with native Bluetooth support - but this will change with time. Apple now has Bluetooth in their laptops, as does Dell and HP in a few models. The momentum will slowly build as people replace their devices for other reasons and find this magical wireless technology has been included.

[moaske]

Haven't read all posts in this thread yet , but com'on: this topic has been beaten to death so much by now and i think that's primarily due to the fact that all you geeks want too much, too fast and too easy ;) Ofcourse setting up a LAN or PAN network with BT is a huge hassle: it WASN'T INTENDED to do that !

Like somebody else posted; it's just a f***ing cable-replacement, nothing more....nothing less. And Ed: offcourse nobody will hookup his printer or scanner to his box with BT.... would be pointless, cause noone carries around his/her big grey desktop box all day :|
It's all the mobile stuff we carry around all day that makes us want to lose the cables. The handy, the PDA and the headset (which is obligatory over here when driving a car). Imagine all that hooked up with cables: you'd hang yourself inadvertently ;)

Anyway; like another poster said: i'll never want any mobile device that doesn't offer Bluetooth anymore. I think it's simply great technology ! :way to go: Btw; in europe Bluetooth has taken off quite good, as you see more and more BT handsets coming to market. In fact; you can almost say it's becoming a majority.

Just my 2 (euro-)cents 8)

[daS]

Ofcourse setting up a LAN or PAN network with BT is a huge hassle: it WASN'T INTENDED to do that !
Actually it was. LAN and PAN have been profiles in the original Bluetooth specs. I think that was a mistake since it confused a lot of people into thinking it was the main focus of Bluetooth. Of course it's not.

Bluetooth will ultimately become common because it has such general purpose functionality.
[/quote]

[SeanH]

D.psi wrote
Does the general population go and replace their consumer electronics because a new gizmo is available? I'm guessing that broadly speaking, no.
I am the same way. I buy technology based devices and use them as long as possible. My iPAQ 3630 is three years old now and I will continue to use it until I find a PDA with a lot of new features. On the other hand I do think Bluetooth and WiFi are here to say. Bluetooth is great technology that replaces all the serial port wires and is great for transferring audio to a hands free speaker for a ear piece. WiFi is great for wireless Ethernet. GSM/GPRS or CDMA 2000 is great for wireless cellular based internet access.

If there was a new PDA with built in Bluetooth, WiFi and GSM/GPRS or CDMA 2000 and an open SDIO slot I would upgrade my iPAQ 3630 today.

Here are a few consumer devices I bought over the years.

First Cell Phone was a NEC trunk mount unit 1985-1997 (12 years)
Second Cell Phone is a Nokia 6160 1997-Now (6 years)
First PDA was a Palm Pro 1995-2000 (5 years)
Second PDA is a iPAQ 3630 2000-Now (3 years)
(It has a CF sleeve with a 1GB HD and a 802.11b card)
Here is a pic of the stereo and TV www.mbu.com/91.jpg
The receiver, CD deck, tape deck, laser disc, and VCR are all more then 10 years old (10 years)
The DVD player is about 5 years old and the 60” TV is 9 years old. (9 years)
The Tivo is 2 years old, it behind the TV (every should own a Tivo) (2 years)
This PC is almost six years old. It’s a Dual PII 350MHz with a TNT video card, SB audio, 10K RPM SCSI 18GB HD and 3COM Ethernet. It’s still very very fast. (6 years)

My point is that its good to buy technology based devices and use them for a long time. The key to that is to get a device that will support future standard as they are there adopted. I would never recommend buying a new PDA today unless it included Bluetooth and WiFi because you’re going to need/want it in the future.

Sean

[racerx]

Part of the problem with the adoption rate is that manufacturers are NOT including BlueTooth with their devices. It don't know this for a fact, but SUPPOSEDLY, BT is cheap to include in things like phones and PDAs. If so, there really should be no reason why it is not being included. THIS will spur even more BT implementation and integration. More and more people in the US are getting cell phones. If BT is a standard option, then people might be willing to pay more for a BT headset. That in turn will cause the cost of such a headset to go down. If car manufacturers see a proliferation of BT devices, they will start to include BT car kits instead of a one-brand kit (like Lexus with the Nokia kit :evil: ). It is totally a chicken and egg senario and phones ALL need to have BT included. That will drive car kits and PDAs. Then other things like desktops that can sync with either a PDA or phone will follow. I know Sprint and Verizon need to get their heads out of their butts and start letting the phone manufacturers design the phones instead of the phone companies (I also think both companies should go to SIM cards so I can change my phone depending on my daily situation :idea: ). Then life will be wonderful. :D

[D.psi]

RacerX wrote:
It don't know this for a fact, but SUPPOSEDLY, BT is cheap to include in things like phones and PDAs.

See that's the funny thing, ever since the new low price handhelds have come out, people keep saying that it can't be very expensive to add X, Y or Z feature. But the thing is, to satisfy everyone, and continue to have a viable product LINE, you can't have the entry units having no distinguishing features from the high end units.

If BT's cost is only $30, and Wi-Fi is another $25, and SDIO is another $45, then your original $300 PDA is now closer to $400. Well if I'm getting most of the $500 PDA features, why bother with the assoicated price tag. You need a variety of price points, each of which will have associated feature trade-offs.

You'll pay for form factor, you'll pay for screen quality, for memory type (both RAM and ROM), and for memory size. And you pay for tech support. The more features are built in the more it cost to support the "I'm trying to print using BT, but I can't seem to talk to my printer that's two floors away" type of service call. All of these things cost money. And any single feature may be cheap, but add them all up and it costs more than you'd imagine, for the product, and the supporting infrastructure.

Yes it would be great to have an all singing all dancing JORNADA (I am quite sentimental :wink: ) for $250 CDN, but I understand that won't happen. So save your pennies, and figure out what is really essential to you. Then wait for the market to give you what you see as essential. And yes be prepared to pay the assoicated price tag :( .

[hollis_f]

Part of the problem with the adoption rate is that manufacturers are NOT including BlueTooth with their devices. Hmmm - have a look here (http://www.blueunplugged.com/shop/department.asp?Department=3) for some up 'n' coming BT devices.

[racerx]

Part of the problem with the adoption rate is that manufacturers are NOT including BlueTooth with their devices. Hmmm - have a look here (http://www.blueunplugged.com/shop/department.asp?Department=3) for some up 'n' coming BT devices.

Point taken. But most of this stuff only us geeks know about. The average joe doesn't know what a dongle is, regardless of what it does. What I should have said was true consumer electronics - phones, pdas, printers, PCs, headsets - things you're going to get from Best Buy, Circuit City and even Costco/Sams Club.

If you were able to eliminate the cradle (by using one of those charging pads that are coming out in the next year or so) and automatically have your PDA or phone updated with the latest information from your PC, you would have a sweet setup. Take a setup like that, combine it with some type of shopping/errand managment application that can be run from a terminal (not necessarily a PC) from the kitchen or other nerve center of the home and now, your average consumer can truely see the benefits (and yes, increase cost-justification) of such a setup. And bluetooth (I believe) truely is the answer to such a situation.

[alanjrobertson]

In this case have a look at floAt's: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=153. It'll do this for you. For syncing I use the Sony Ericsson Extended Connect, works very well - are you sure you have the devices paired? Also, in the Phone Monitor you have to disable all com ports and enable exatcly the one used as Bluetooth client. After this, manually open a connection to the phone, close it, and it should work from there on... - floAt is good, but it's not a patch on the Mac's 'proximity sensor' coding - I'd love to see something similar on the PC though! (it does things like automatically mute music when you leave the room and put the volume back up when you come in!).

On the general debate - I agree with what many folks have said - in Europe BT is definitely getting there - many new phones now come with it as standard and lots of those phones are free with contracts (in the UK anyway). Perhaps one of the 'killer apps' over here will be the multiplayer gaming on mobiles using BT - I could defintely see that gaining popularity (IR isn't exactly the friendliest of technologies for 2-way comms if you're bumping up and down in a bus - kinda difficult to keep the two devices aligned!).

Personally I use BT to connect my Tungsten|T to my T68i when out & about; T68i --> HBH-15 headset when at home; T|T --> PC for browsing the web, etc. All works extremely well :D

Cheers

Alan

[rossrubin]

This Ross Rubin seems to just be one of those guys that thinks he sounds superior if he knocks something down. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about

Yeah, what an ignorant jerk. As I already privately responded to David who apprently saw fit to seek my private response only after attacking me publicly, I stand by my characterization of Wi-Fi as a generalist technology and Bluetooth as a specialist in terms of application and OEM choice. Wi-Fi has simply become the more popular choice to wirelessly enable a laptop. Does that mean that you can use Wi-Fi to sync to a cell phone? No, at least not yet. Does it mean that the market is saying that it would rather have Wi-Fi than Bluetooth in laptops (which was the context in which I made the argument)? Yes.

There seems to be a lot of discussion over whether Wi-Fi and Bluetooth compete. When I was managing wireless research for Jupiter, I had us take the position that they do not practically compete. However, they do compete in terms of opportunity cost for OEMs, the same way Wi-Fi competes with better battery life, higher video resolution, or any other feature that adds cost. Bluetooth's now been remarketed as a cable-replacement technology primarily because of Wi-Fi. If there were no Wi-Fi, you'd be hearing a lot more about wireless Bluetooth networks because, technically, Bluetooth is a networking technology, and not a bad one at that, but the Bluetooth folks see what happened to HomeRF, which also had technical but not speed advantages over Wi-Fi.

The main point of my first Bluetooth column, which actually gave Bluetooth more credit than I've seen it get elsewhere, there has been far more support for Bluetooth on the PC and handheld side than there has been in the handset world. Unfortunately, until it develops as a way to enable the handset as a wireless WAN gateway, most of the PC-based tasks for which Bluetooth can be used (syncing, etc.) will be able to be delivered by Wi-Fi, which will have a large installed base anyway.

I am a fan of Bluetooth's functionality, but I am not religious about what technology ultimately delivers it, and that was some of the focus of Part Two (http://wireless.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,3973,999677,00.asp) of the Bluetooth column.

Best,
Ross

---
Ross Rubin
Editor, Ziff Davis Wireless Supersite (http://wireless.ziffdavis.com/)

[alanjrobertson]

...there has been far more support for Bluetooth on the PC and handheld side than there has been in the handset world... Interesting - I would have said pretty much the opposite. Almost all high-end phones now have BT (and some mid-range ones too), but still some of the main new PDAs aren't supporting it to the same extent. As far as the general public are concerned I'd say that (in the UK at least) most of them see it as a technology for mobile phones that let's you use a wireless headset when you're driving (which is hopefully compatible with new regulations and will save you the cost of getting a car kit installed!). This is in the main probably down to the fact that so many more people have a mobile than have a PDA!

I must say though that for those who do want to use it with their PDA it is getting impressively easy to use. With my Tungsten|T it was simply a case of running the 'phone link' app, specifying my country, phone model, and mobile network name and that was it done! Certainly much more intuitive that it was on my m505 (which took a lot of fiddling around to setup!).

Just my 2p.

Cheers

Alan

[freitasm]

...there has been far more support for Bluetooth on the PC and handheld side than there has been in the handset world... Interesting - I would have said pretty much the opposite. Almost all high-end phones now have BT (and some mid-range ones too), but still some of the main new PDAs aren't supporting it to the same extent. As far as the general public are concerned I'd say that (in the UK at least) most of them see it as a technology for mobile phones that let's you use a wireless headset when you're driving (which is hopefully compatible with new regulations and will save you the cost of getting a car kit installed!). This is in the main probably down to the fact that so many more people have a mobile than have a PDA!

I must say though that for those who do want to use it with their PDA it is getting impressively easy to use. With my Tungsten|T it was simply a case of running the 'phone link' app, specifying my country, phone model, and mobile network name and that was it done! Certainly much more intuitive that it was on my m505 (which took a lot of fiddling around to setup!).

Just my 2p.

Cheers

Alan

:cry: I use Bluetooth all the time: I have a TDK USB on my desktop, a T39m, a H3970 and a BT Headset... Now, guess what? I was given by Vodafone, free of charge, as an "early adopter" a brand new Sharp GX10 to enjoy "Vodafone live!" (also because they want me to say good things on Geekzone). The mobile is great, including camera, J2ME, clamshell, the works - but doesn't have Bluetooth! I'm really considering keeping the T39m as the BT modem for my H3970, in the car 8O