Sony Claims to Have a 'Feel' for Bluetooth [Archive]

Jason Dunn

07-09-2003, 01:00 AM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.eetuk.com/printableArticle?doc_id=OEG20030617S0036' target='_blank'>http://www.eetuk.com/printableArtic...EG20030617S0036</a><br /><br /></div>"Making Bluetooth technology easier for consumers to use quickly emerged as a key issue at this year's low-key Bluetooth World Congress that opened here Tuesday (June 17). Resolving the ease-of-use issue would address designers concerns about consumers being scared away from the wireless technology. The Bluetooth community is struggling to find a way to ensure that consumers can quickly set up Bluetooth connectivity that currently takes hours in some cases. The goal is to get Bluetooth-enabled devices up and running within five minutes of taking them out of the box. <br /><br />A Sony Corp. unit said it has the answer, but others here said they remain skeptical. Maria Khorsand, president of Ericsson Technology Licensing, in her keynote speech, called consumer acceptance of Bluetooth "one of the most critical issues we need to debate this year in our industry."<br /><br />The article goes on to explain a solution Sony has developed called "Feel" - it sounds very interesting. They claim in as little as one second, two devices can see each other, and know exactly what to do. Sounds a little too good to be true - oh, wait, it is. :roll: Sony will license this technology to other companies, which of course means it will never take off because an arch-nemesis like Philips won't pay for a Sony-developed solution. Sony also makes no claims about how well this will work with non-Sony Bluetooth products. <br /><br />They really don't get it, do they? Bluetooth, just like the DVD burning wars (that are thankfully now mostly over), is cursed by having implementation scenarios that are too difficult. Until Bluetooth is as easy as USB to use (install drivers, plug in, it works), it will not achieve mass-market adoption.

JonnoB

07-09-2003, 01:05 AM

Bluetooth advancements, like other technologies belong in a standards body. If Sony has something to contribute, it should make it a contribution to the SIG and just be first to market with the technology.

bbarker

07-09-2003, 01:07 AM

Sony is following the Sony way. Sigh.

Excalliber

07-09-2003, 01:07 AM

Just like their "feel" for solid state memory? :lol:

I can see it becoming a product line name... :roll:

Anthony Caruana

07-09-2003, 01:11 AM

You're spot on Jason. No consumer technology that is hard to use will ever succeed. Why is WiFi so successful? Becasue it is easy. You install the NIC and the provided software/driver finds access points without the user being involved. If the access point is secured then entering the security information is easy.

I was just reading this thread
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14388

And have concluded that Bluetooth is just too hard.

If the main players in Bluetooth standards can get together and come up with a solution then consumers will take it up. But I can't see Sony's rivals wanting to pay Sony to license their "standards".

:soapbox:

Foo Fighter

07-09-2003, 01:15 AM

My God, Jason! I never thought I'd live to see the day Palminfocenter is a source for one of your news items. :rotfl: Carl Yankowski must be turning in his grave. I feel so unclean.

http://www.pocketfactory.com/images/carl.gif

Emo Conservative

07-09-2003, 01:15 AM

Bluetooth? Mah! Wi-Fi forever; yo :devilboy:

bbarker

07-09-2003, 01:18 AM

Thinkingmandavid

07-09-2003, 01:36 AM

sony should just bring out the technology, enough of the licensing. This is only going to raise the cost of blue tooth and none of this is good for the average ppc user nor consumers who want to be ppc owners. It sounds great, ppc bluetooth, head set blue tooth, but getting it done in one second at a reasonable cost is hardly in myopinion going to happen. It is bad enough the current cost of blue tooth items are just too expensive in my opinion for consumers to just take off wiht it. The dvd player is a good example, videos players before it same thing. Hell, there was a day when calculators were the same way. It is a shame they cant make and sell it at a reasonable cost which is the average everyday consumer being able to purchase the product. This mass buying/selling would take care of cost.

Scott R

07-09-2003, 01:58 AM

Until Bluetooth is as easy as USB to use (install drivers, plug in, it works), it will not achieve mass-market adoption.What's so easy about that? Install drivers? The average consumer doesn't want to be bothered installing drivers, and many of them wouldn't know how (unless it's as simple as the device saying "Insert the disk with the red label that came in the box" and it takes care of the rest). And considering the persistent issues reported here about ActiveSync not working, I'm not sure if USB has arrived yet, either.

Scott

JonnoB

07-09-2003, 02:09 AM

What's so easy about that? Install drivers? The average consumer doesn't want to be bothered installing drivers, and many of them wouldn't know how (unless it's as simple as the device saying "Insert the disk with the red label that came in the box" and it takes care of the rest). And considering the persistent issues reported here about ActiveSync not working, I'm not sure if USB has arrived yet, either.

Activesync is a problem on its own and not a USB problem. USB devices that require drivers are in fact less user friendly than a bluetooth device that needs no drivers... but it is a choice in design extensibility. BT must have the profile already installed otherwise it also is a software update. Many USB devices are natively supported by the Windows OS... mass storage devices for example. BT has promise, but the lack of ease-of-use for many has led to it not being more successful. I think that once Microsoft includes bluetooth hardware in its WHQL certification process and takes over some of testing process, we won't see the improvements that we have seen over the years with PCI cards and USB peripherals.

freitasm

07-09-2003, 02:53 AM

My point about Sony is their insistence on proprietary solutions they expect the industry to adopt. But the same cultural quirk that fosters this attitude prevents the other Asian companies from considering it, so we end up with multiple "standards." The consumers lose.

The best thing about VHS is that Sony eventually lost that standards fight.

You're right :mrgreen: ! Have a look at this thread (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=8&TopicId=260) just for an idea of what would happen if Sony had its way through this...

iPaqDude

07-09-2003, 02:55 AM

Sheesh - am I alone here? I have had zip - nada - zero problems in linking and using BT technology between my T68's, PDA, Laptop, Jabra and desktop ('course, not all together....).

I really think that somewhere along the line if a person has a problem (one time) that it's forever a cursed technology instead of maybe a product defect or - not for any one on this forum (of course) - a user error.

I think BlueTooth is a great technology that has a few bumps and wrinkles to iron out but will take off.

If Sony thinks they have a "feel" for a better way of implementing BT, then they should take that to the standards bodies and get it part of the base packages.

just my .02.. :soapbox:

freitasm

07-09-2003, 02:58 AM

I was just reading this thread
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14388

And have concluded that Bluetooth is just too hard.

:soapbox:

It's not... If you re-read the thread you'll notice that more than a few times was said to check IP addresses. And that was the whole problem. Once changed, it worked fine.

Bluetooth to link two devices over a serial connection (mobile phone to laptop) is easy. Bluetooth to link two devices for a headset cable replacement is easy (mobile phone to headset).

Bluetooth to link two devices to share a LAN connection is harder (routers, network cards, IP addresses, DNS). Not harder than wi-fi. Try installing a wi-fi router with DHCP on if you already have a wired router with DHCP on. You'll find the same problems as doing this with Bluetooth.

topps

07-09-2003, 04:02 AM

Sheesh - am I alone here? I have had zip - nada - zero problems in linking and using BT technology

I think BlueTooth is a great technology that has a few bumps and wrinkles to iron out but will take off.

Yup, I think you are alone...

well maybe not but I think the point remains valid that you are the exception not the rule. BT is nowhere close to plug n play, and when it was hyped with this in mind, it especially suffers when it can't deliver.

I really think that BT has missed the boat...notwithstanding any offers by Sony, who hardly have a very good track record at with propagating standards that others will adopt.

Consider the supposed advantages:
1. Plug n play - still not there 5 years after it was first mooted.
2. Speed - better than serial port but slower than just about everything else
3. Battery life - still an advantage but is this enough
4. Freq hopping - for most applications, who cares?

They are kinda hoist on their own petard because the big advantage is in connecting a variety of pieces of hardware eg headsets, keyboards, etc but as the range of possible devices grows, so does the complexity of making drivers that will get one BT device to talk to another.

And even at a simple level, I am distressed that my fancy Jabra BT headset does not connect with most things and even varies widely in how it works from one device to another (eg. compare Sony T68i vs Nokia 6350).

So my take on all this...too little too late...if they were to have a chance and get this sorted out, it had to be over this past year

...and they had the temerity to trumpet the relese of BT 1.2 spec a couple of months ago when it was announced over a year ago...c'mon guys, this was a minor version release.

madbart

07-09-2003, 04:25 AM

So it has only taken them 2 years to realise that the average consumer finds it difficult to setup BT. :roll:

You only had to give someone 2 devices and ask them to pair them to find how difficult it actually is!

As a matter of course we setup our customers BT devices and walk them through how to connect to save any confusion.

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2003, 05:09 AM

Maria Khorsand, president of Ericsson Technology Licensing, in her keynote speech, called consumer acceptance of Bluetooth "one of the most critical issues we need to debate this year in our industry."

Bwhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaha :rotfl:

they just don't get it do they? the debate should be on why BT setup and interaction is pathetic, not why Joe Public doesn't want to fool with it. :roll:

They should, in no particular order:
1) fix it so it works
2) fire the guy(s) on the BT committee responsible for the shambles BT is in
3) fix it so it works

jimski

07-09-2003, 05:21 AM

Can someone please point me to the market study that says consumers will not buy; bluetooth printers, bluetooth mice, bluetooth keyboards, bluetooth hands-free units, bluetooth card readers, etc. because they are too hard to setup.

The fact is that for the most part, these devices do not exist. They never had a chance to fail. If they did exist, I would own all of them and struggle as I may (no less I might add than dealing with Active Stink or Windows ME) to make them all work.

I think the post 9/11 economy has probable killed Bluetooth's 15 minutes of fame. I still have a press release issued by Belkin from I believe 2000, talking about a whole new line of new Bluetooth devices to be introduced shortly. For a company that makes lot and lots of cables, I really thought this was a good strategy. I am still waiting.

Bluetooth makes like easier. Unfortunately, there will probably be two or three new, incompatible technologies to replace it. And once again, we will have a great idea (replace wires) that gets lost in the quagmire of corporate competition and greed.

Janak Parekh

07-09-2003, 05:57 AM

they just don't get it do they? the debate should be on why BT setup and interaction is pathetic, not why Joe Public doesn't want to fool with it. :roll:
To Ericsson's credit, their BT implementations have been extremely reliable in my experience. RF on the T68 was a different matter....

--janak

CTSLICK

07-09-2003, 06:07 AM

Sheesh - am I alone here? I have had zip - nada - zero problems in linking and using BT technology between my T68's, PDA, Laptop, Jabra and desktop ('course, not all together....).

No, you're not alone. I was up and running with my Axim-Ambicom BT CF-T68 combo within 10 minutes. It was not hard. Bluetooth has its place and I really like my set up.

Just curious, what's the Wi-Fi equivalent to my mobile internet connection set up?

disconnected

07-09-2003, 06:30 AM

I'm no techie, and haven't tried too many of these combinations, but I think there's some revisionist history going on here. :)

Getting WiFi set up on a PC (XP Home) was too complicated for me and it took CompUSA quite a while too (not helped by Linksys being slow with their XP support). They never did manage to get it installed to my Sony Windows 98 laptop. Even installing the Linksys PPC drivers took some effort. Looking back, you can find many very long threads on several forums about Wi-Fi difficulties.

Adding a USB printer and scanner to the PC was a nightmare. I had to work my way through several layers of HP support staff to find someone that could help. Even after they finally installed I still had problems. I have an HP printer and an HP PC, and the best solution HP could find for the printer stopping in the middle of printing photographs was that I have to plug the printer into a USB port on the front of the PC and not the back.

I was a little nervous when I got my first bluetooth accessory (GPS receiver) for my iPAQ 3975, but it didn't take me more than two minutes to set it up, and it's worked perfectly from the beginning.

nirav28

07-09-2003, 06:52 AM

Christian

07-09-2003, 07:07 AM

It really is ironic - when I made the decision to purchase an iPaq 2210, just about the only feature that didn't play into the choice was bluetooth. Now that I have it, I actually went out of my way just to find something to use it for. Frankly, I'm still looking. Adding bluetooth to my printer would cost as much as replacing it. I don't own a cell phone nor have a need for one. I considered equipping my PC with bluetooth, but realized that all this would allow me to do is to sync my PDA slower than with the existing USB connection. The most useful peripherals I could think of are keyboards, mice, and headsets - none of which are supported. Just about the only thing I can do is to trade files with all of the other bluetooth PDAs out there... at Circuit City. :roll:

SassKwatch

07-09-2003, 07:43 AM

It really is ironic - when I made the decision to purchase an iPaq 2210, just about the only feature that didn't play into the choice was bluetooth. Now that I have it, I actually went out of my way just to find something to use it for. Frankly, I'm still looking.
May not be a need for you, but the one pretty cool use I've found for BT is a GPS.

I purchased the Emtac flavor, and was surprised at how easy it was to set up.

JonnoB

07-09-2003, 08:32 AM

May not be a need for you, but the one pretty cool use I've found for BT is a GPS.

I purchased the Emtac flavor, and was surprised at how easy it was to set up.

Of course, with a 2210 he gets a CF slot and can use a less expensive CF GPS solution as opposed to a GPS version that requires batteries to be replaced. :D

I believe that BT has possibilities, but in its current form it will not succeed. It needs MS or someone else bigger to back it through hardware certification. I believe that IP (packet communication) is the future for cable replacements and it may not be todays WiFi, but the nearest-term winner in this category will be based on an IP protocol infrastructure.

Basically, what is needed is a hybrid of todays BT and WiFi
BT type chipset for power consumption
BT type profiles for common pairing
WiFi type IP protocol
BT type security (on top of IP)

freitasm

07-09-2003, 08:39 AM

I considered equipping my PC with bluetooth, but realized that all this would allow me to do is to sync my PDA slower than with the existing USB connection.

OR LAN sharing, which is ideal if you want/need to browse the internet from your PPC.

freitasm

07-09-2003, 08:41 AM

I don't understand why bluetooth device developers didn't incorporate IP as their standard connectivity protocol? This whole thing about mapping to a serial port is just insane.

Sure, some people here might say that configuring IP/DHCP/DNS is just as hard. Fine!. Add a NAT layer on top of the BT stack, so the bluetooth device acts as a client. Get IP addresses and dns info straight from dhcp from the servers (laptop , pda etc) NAT layer.

Serial is way too slow. USB is capable of 11 mbps max throughput and IP over that would be much faster than the current serial profiles that BT has to offer.

That's the idea. Bluetooth implements Profiles, each one a different service equivalent to a wire being replaced. Hence LAN Connection (IP), Serial (RS232), Headset (audio), OBEX File Exchange (File transfer), PIM Sync, etc. Not all these "profiles" require TCP connectivity.

The only that needs is LAN Access/Sharing, and the IP connectivity is provided by the host computer, in Windows case ICS or Winrouter or AnalogX or whatever you want. This is the beauty: independence!

madbart

07-09-2003, 09:47 AM

I think you guys are missing the point.....the BT feature has to be a easy to setup as pushing a button on each device to connect before the average mum and dad or non technical coporate person will buy and feel comfortable implementing it and or WiFi.

How many of you actual work in a PC/Phone business and have people come back in asking for your assistance? :?

I have worked in the industry for 15 years and nothing has cuased more headaches for my tech department than clients asking for assistance for installing & seting up of BT & WiFi.

ChristopherTD

07-09-2003, 09:50 AM

Slightly off-topic but the BBC has an article about hi-tech jargon (including Bluetooth) and a wee quiz (which most folk here would find easy).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3054210.stm

madbart

07-09-2003, 10:16 AM

Can someone please point me to the market study that says consumers will not buy; bluetooth printers, bluetooth mice, bluetooth keyboards, bluetooth hands-free units, bluetooth card readers, etc. because they are too hard to setup.

here you go.....................

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3054210.stm

It was comissioned by AMD

Scott R

07-09-2003, 12:25 PM

I don't currently own any BT devices, though I had been thinking that the Sprint Sony-Ericsson T608 (the fate of which is now in jeopardy) paired with a BT Palm and/or PPC might be one of my next purchases. I can't help but wonder if the problems here consist of the following:
1) Poor implementation by certain hardware manufacturers (which could also be attributed to it being a new technology that they hadn't quite figured out). My understanding is that people had very good luck pairing the Palm TT with phones, for instance. So, just because a particular manufacturer does a bad job implementing it, it doesn't mean that the technology is too hard for consumers.
2) Trying to use BT as a replacement for Wi-Fi. People were (and still are) confused about the coexistence of Wi-Fi and BT. I'm of the opinion that BT was never meant to be used for the same purpose of Wi-Fi. If you want to use it in that manner, you can but prepare to deal with more setup headaches. The "moms and pops" of the world won't be using it for that, so it should be a non-issue there.

Scott

beq

07-09-2003, 01:29 PM

SassKwatch

07-09-2003, 01:33 PM

Of course, with a 2210 he gets a CF slot and can use a less expensive CF GPS solution as opposed to a GPS version that requires batteries to be replaced. :D
Well, there's a bit of a tradeoff there. The CF GPS may not need it's own batteries to be replaced/charged, but it will drain the batteries of the 2210 that much quicker.

Advantage: None

Believe me, I'm not singing the praises of BT. In fact, I was ragging on it when seemingly the rest of tech world was coninuously doing it's 'This is the year of BT' thing...year after year.

But in this one particular instance, the BT option seemed worth trying. I did worry about the ease of setup given all the complaints I'd heard previously about the problems people were having with various devices, but this was *very* easy to do with the 5455. And I've been surprised at how well it continues to work

A CF solution would still have a price advantage.

beq

07-09-2003, 01:49 PM

Additionally, how well does a CF GPS work in the car I've wondered? Do you still have to hold the whole thing next to the windshield, in which case you can't really use/read the screen all that well. Or hold it comfortably next to you but then you'd have to use an outboard antenna on the dashboard that connects via cable to the antenna jack on the CF GPS card's bulb head (which just sounds bad)? To be fair though gpspassion has repeatedly mentioned how good no-line-of-sight today's sirf chipset works...

But still, a BT GPS sounds better in this regard? Hmm, maybe a good alternative is a BT GPS watch. In the car, just take off your watch and lay it on the dashboard :) And you can wear the watch when travelling on foot and still get GPS access without having to plug a monstrous CF GPS card to the top of your PPC...

EDIT: I'm referring to a passenger in the car using the PPC with GPS application to help guide the driver...

Duncan

07-09-2003, 02:43 PM

Some people have compared BT with USB and WiFi for ease of connection. OK...

Every BT device I have ever owned (quuite a few) has found and connected to every other BT device immediately, transparently, without fuss. Basically it is as easy as connecting a USB cable.

The BT standard does exactly what it says on the box (and has done since ver. 1.1). Any issues I've ever had (and they are rare - when I read of people failing to connect an iPAQ and a t68 I wonder just how they are managing to cock-up something so absurdly simple!) have been to do with the next layer of software implementation by the device manufacturer (of which Sony wins the 'How to make something simple really complicated' award hands down). Just like problems with USB devices in fact!

Now - WiFi - (and for goodness sake will those people who still think that they are competing technologies actually use there nous and read up a little on the subjsect before they stick their 2'pennorth in). I am intelligent and IT capable and can say from personal experience - if people think that WiFi is easy or 'public ready' then they are kidding themselves. Several different WiFi solutions I've had now and each ahs required me to learn a different way of looking at the same stuff. Why do I still have to wade through technical explanations of how to set up security, diffent forms of connections etc.? Why can't WifFi be plug and play like - well, Bluetooth....!

I've had to explain WiFi and Bluetooth to very very non-tech literate bunch (who were outfitted with BT/WiFi enabled PDAs and WiFi/BT enabled laptops). Guess which of the two techs gets the least use...

hollis_f

07-09-2003, 05:02 PM

Where a BT GPS really, really beats the CF (or sleeve) GPS is in a car with a certain type of heated windscreen. these can totally block the GPS signals. With a CF GPS you've got the choice of

1. Placing the PPC where you can see the screen, but can't get a signal.

2. Place the PPC where you can get a signal, but can't see the screen.

3. Buy a re-radiating antenna (more cables, another thing that need power) or an external ariel (if your GPS supports it, and you don't mind even more cables).

With the BT GPS it's simple. Put the GPS on the back shelf.[/list]

Duncan

07-09-2003, 05:04 PM

With the BT GPS it's simple. Put the GPS on the back shelf

Some brave souls have discovered the magnetics are powerful enough to stick the Emtac to the car roof! 8O

SassKwatch

07-09-2003, 05:27 PM

Some brave souls have discovered the magnetics are powerful enough to stick the Emtac to the car roof! 8O

Brave they are!

I keep mine in the console tray. Had originally planned to velcro it to the Arkon mount, but it works just fine sitting in the tray. And that with me driving a 6 speed and hand/arm frequently hovering over the tray.

Janak Parekh

07-09-2003, 05:27 PM

I don't understand why bluetooth device developers didn't incorporate IP as their standard connectivity protocol? This whole thing about mapping to a serial port is just insane.
No, it's not. IP is a very "chatty" protocol, with concepts like UDP/ARP broadcasts. As a result, it's not particularly power-efficient. By supporting profiles, more "efficient" protocols can be devised that aren't limited by IP.

Serial is way too slow. USB is capable of 11 mbps max throughput and IP over that would be much faster than the current serial profiles that BT has to offer.
BT definitely offers LAN and other higher-speed profiles. Also, who says the serial profile has to be 115kbps? That just happens to be a common implementation, but there's no reason serial framing is limited to that rate.

--janak

whydidnt

07-09-2003, 05:33 PM

The thing that is messing with Bluetooth IMO is that everything seems to want to use a Serial Port to communicate. Of course the Serial Port is even slower than Bluetooth's maximum throughput AND requires one to select a unique port on both the host and the PPC. Having to go through this experience connecting my 2215 to my Laptop reminded me of having to configure IRQ's for modems and the like back in DOS and Win 3.1 days :evil: . It's no wonder Joe Q. Public hasn't taken to this technology.

However, pairing things like a headset to my phone are quite painless, as long as the pass keys are known. :)

It seems a lot of bluetooth implementations don't include the HID support, which is what I thought was a primary purpose (cable replacement) for bluetooth. A pocketable bluetooth keyboard would be the perfect complement to the 2215, but the HID profile is not supported by the 2210 for some insane reason. It's this kind of inconsistency that continues to keep bluetooth from gaining wider acceptance.

Whydidnt

Duncan

07-09-2003, 05:40 PM

The thing that is messing with Bluetooth IMO is that everything seems to want to use a Serial Port to communicate. Of course the Serial Port is even slower than Bluetooth's maximum throughput AND requires one to select a unique port on both the host and the PPC. Having to go through this experience connecting my 2215 to my Laptop reminded me of having to configure IRQ's for modems and the like back in DOS and Win 3.1 days

The virtual serial ports for BT run faster than the real thing you know! Plus - both iPAQ and PC BT dongle set up their serial ports automatically. To set up BT ActiveSync is a simple case of looking to see what COM number the BT serial port is and choosing that in the AS settings screen (just like selecting any other serial or USB port) - everything else is automatic! How did you manage to find more to do than that?!!

HID support is unnessessary for BT keyboard use - unless you use the MS BT keyboard. Profiles can of course be updated via software upgrades as and when there is a need.

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2003, 06:06 PM

Looks like Intel was right - this from 2001 - http://www.pocketnow.com/index.php?a=portal_detail&t=news&id=339

Russ Smith also had a good article at PocketNow about this whole issue, but they redid their sites and saw fit to totally destroy all past links. :bad-words: You can read our discussion about it at http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4902 though. Jason never messes with links. :D

PeterLake

07-09-2003, 06:09 PM

Additionally, how well does a CF GPS work in the car I've wondered?

Off topic, but since you ask, as long as the CF is near the windshield (such as on the dash) it's fine. If its any closer to the middle of the car, it stinks.

Jonathan1

07-09-2003, 07:55 PM

Its Sony so it’ll be proprietary and only work with other Sony crap. Thanks but after memory stick. Fool me once shame on you...

whydidnt

07-09-2003, 08:19 PM

The virtual serial ports for BT run faster than the real thing you know! Plus - both iPAQ and PC BT dongle set up their serial ports automatically. To set up BT ActiveSync is a simple case of looking to see what COM number the BT serial port is and choosing that in the AS settings screen (just like selecting any other serial or USB port) - everything else is automatic! How did you manage to find more to do than that?!!

Are you sure the ports are faster? Why do I have to select a port speed, then? ---

On the second point, when I plug a USB Device into my PC, I DO NOT have to select a port for it to use, it just works. The act of having to select a port number can be confusing, especially when specific services don't display the desired port. This says nothing about then trying to snychronize my Cell phone via blue tooth.. that service wants it's own port as well. You may infer I'm an idiot on this if you like, but I'm not alone with these issues. I consider myself an advanced PC user, having built numerous systems, including troubleshooting many software issues, but IMO BlueTooth is 'not ready for the masses" based upon my experience.

Whydidnt

whydidnt

07-09-2003, 08:26 PM

HID support is unnessessary for BT keyboard use - unless you use the MS BT keyboard. Profiles can of course be updated via software upgrades as and when there is a need.

Please point me in the direction of a BT keyboard that does not use the HID profile. Oh yea, I would like it to be useable with my IPaq. Thank you. :frusty:

Whydidnt

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2003, 08:30 PM

Its Sony so it’ll be proprietary and only work with other Sony crap. Thanks but after memory stick. Fool me once shame on you...
Ha! With Sony, you can't even be guaranteed it will work with Sony. Put a Memory Stick Pro in your 1-2 year old Sony....

Duncan

07-09-2003, 08:33 PM

Why do I have to select a port speed, then?

I have no idea - I've never had to do that in any BT configuration - seems pretty odd to me!

The act of having to select a port number can be confusing, especially when specific services don't display the desired port.

I've had three BT dongles. Each has clearly shown the port number (e.g. COM 4) for the serial port. Selecting the port in AS is no biggie - simple drop down list from which you pick the COM port you intend to use - that is what I mean by selecting USB - the different tick boxes in the AS settings screen...

The thing is - serial ports (and the need to select from a choice) were as common as muck before USB - the public coped well enough with that. Even now AS runs through available COM ports while setting up.

You may infer I'm an idiot on this if you like I'm not inferring anything if the sort - don't be so paranoid - but I am genuinely bewildered that you are having to make choices and decisions in your BT set-up that I have never seen or had to make?!

What is more - I've set up BT with (i.e. they do the work, I just introduce) members of the non-techie masses and they haven't been remotely confused. WiFi, on the other hand, causes no end of confusion and I usually have to set it up for them as they can't cope with the levls of tech understanding required of them.

Frankly - I have more than enough anecdotal evidence that BT is very consumer friendly - provided people are steered clear of 3COM, Sony etc. - manufacturers who simply can't implement BT in standard ways.

Duncan

07-09-2003, 08:36 PM

Please point me in the direction of a BT keyboard that does not use the HID profile.

Sadly MS chose to use HID for their own keyboard - unnecessary. Until we get more BT keyboards produced then you will be out of luck. A Stowaway with BT would be nice.

whitey

07-09-2003, 10:10 PM

I recently got an Acer Bluetooth Dongle for my PC, after some trouble i finally managed to setup everything perfectly. Using a 3970 i can active sync and surf the web from anywhere in my appartment.
After all, setup is easy if you know how... :)

Jason Dunn

07-10-2003, 01:18 AM

The thing is - serial ports (and the need to select from a choice) were as common as muck before USB - the public coped well enough with that...Frankly - I have more than enough anecdotal evidence that BT is very consumer friendly - provided people are steered clear of 3COM, Sony etc. - manufacturers who simply can't implement BT in standard ways.

Duncan, my dear friend Duncan, I think you're smoking too much crack. :lol: SERIAL PORTS? I haven't had to mess with serial ports, com ports, IRQs, interrupts, and the rest of that legacy crap since, what, 1996? Joe Public never understood any of it, and the fact that Bluetooth is trying to emulate COM ports speaks to it's biggest weakness: it was designed by geeks for geeks. The vast majority of Bluetooth implementations I've seen are completely illogical, utterly unfathomable, and completely hostile to consumer use.

You and I are living on different planets it would seem. :|

beq

07-10-2003, 01:19 AM

Off topic, but since you ask, as long as the CF is near the windshield (such as on the dash) it's fine. If its any closer to the middle of the car, it stinks.

Thanks for the first-hand recommendation! As well the other subsequent posters here who are convincing. Guess I'll keep saving up for that BT GPS after all :)

beq

07-10-2003, 01:22 AM

It seems a lot of bluetooth implementations don't include the HID support, which is what I thought was a primary purpose (cable replacement) for bluetooth.

I know Widcomm's full stack has HID, I wonder why it's not included for the BT on IBM ThinkPads? IBM initially ships the latest TPs with MS BT stack, which works with their keyboard/mice but not much support otherwise (no headset, etc). But IBM also offers the Widcomm BT driver for download that will support all these other profiles, BUT they say it won't support the BT keyboard/mice... Their solution is for you to just switch back and forth (unload/reload the Widcomm driver) if you want different support...

beq

07-10-2003, 01:27 AM

That brings up to mind again the age-old question -- how well do today's WiFi and BT coexist when used simultaneously? I mean for example the built-in BT in current generation of PPCs and other devices -- like the iPAQ 2210's BT when used with, say, the Socket CF WiFi card at the same time. Is it logical to assume new BT like the 2210's have been fine-tuned for this, but then my Socket CF WiFi card is really old, so...?

I've left the BT always on on the iPAQ and laptops and desktops, as well as all the WiFi access points now. For some reason I haven't thought about the coexistence issue for a long time, but I did have problems activating BT on some devices and maybe this is why?

Forgot to mention, I realize the interference discussions were mostly about 802.11b (on DSSS hi-speed mode) getting interference from Bluetooth, whereas BT's FHSS mode is supposedly already more resilient to begin with (though there were early reports about BT also failing to cnnnect due to WiFi). Hopefully today there's no real interference to worry about on either side...

Janak Parekh

07-10-2003, 02:06 AM

I haven't had to mess with serial ports, com ports, IRQs, interrupts, and the rest of that legacy crap since, what, 1996?
The serial ports are virtual, so there's no IRQs or port addresses to deal with.

Joe Public never understood any of it, and the fact that Bluetooth is trying to emulate COM ports speaks to it's biggest weakness: it was designed by geeks for geeks. The vast majority of Bluetooth implementations I've seen are completely illogical, utterly unfathomable, and completely hostile to consumer use.
It's more because serial technology is cheap, pervasive, and easy to integrate. HID is presumably a USB profile over BT, so that's also an option. The big problem with the BT SIG is the non-enforcement of profiles in BT products. :(

You and I are living on different planets it would seem. :|
I've gotta side with Duncan on this one. Except for BT ActiveSync, I've had so few problems with virtual COM ports, etc.; Bluetooth was a godsend when I carried a 3870 and a T68.

--janak

ctmagnus

07-10-2003, 02:18 AM

I believe that IP (packet communication) is the future for cable replacements and it may not be todays WiFi, but the nearest-term winner in this category will be based on an IP protocol infrastructure.

Basically, what is needed is a hybrid of todays BT and WiFi
BT type chipset for power consumption
BT type profiles for common pairing
WiFi type IP protocol
BT type security (on top of IP)

Hence IPv6. I'm so glad WM2003 supports it.

freitasm

07-10-2003, 02:49 AM

You and I are living on different planets it would seem. :|
I've gotta side with Duncan on this one. Except for BT ActiveSync, I've had so few problems with virtual COM ports, etc.; Bluetooth was a godsend when I carried a 3870 and a T68.

--janak

Agreed with Janak. I can't count the number of Bluetooth devices I've used, but I'll try:

TDK for my desktop
Bluetake for my laptop
iPAQ H3970
Red-M Springboard for my Visor Prism (gone)
SD Bluetooth for my Palm m130 (gone)
Ericsson HBH-20 headset
Ericsson T39m GSM mobile (second mobile)
Nokia 3650 GSM mobile (current first mobile)
Sony Ericsson P800 (review)
DriveBlue car kit (review)
Sony Ericsson T610 (review)
Bluetake printer adapter (review)
Bluetake BT400 headset (review)
Belkin adapters (review)
iPAQ H5450 (review)
Sony Ericsson headset HBH-35 (review)
Jabra BT200 (review)
Socket Bluetooth GPS (review)
Siemens S545 GSM mobile (review)
MS Bluetooth mouse and keyboard (review)

How many times did I have problems? None. All these devices talked to each other (in different combinations) and never had a problem. Always had them up and running in less than five minutes.

Jason Dunn

07-10-2003, 02:53 AM

I've gotta side with Duncan on this one. Except for BT ActiveSync, I've had so few problems with virtual COM ports, etc.; Bluetooth was a godsend when I carried a 3870 and a T68.

If you and Duncan were correct, BT would be everywhere by now. Considering how little adding the chips add to the total code (what, $10? $5?), I think the real blocker to Bluetooth adoption is that no one has figured out how to make it work SIMPLY. I was able to set up my Axim to work with my T68i quite easily, but it was because of the excellent instructions Socket had written, NOT because there was anything intuitive about the process in any way. And disabling the IR port to free up a COM port? That's asinine and only confuses consumers - "Oh yeah, I can't beam to/from my device because of this COM port thing...."

Until Bluetooth is truly plug and play, it will remain a marginal technology, hyped by many, used by few.

Ed Hansberry

07-10-2003, 03:06 AM

Hence IPv6. I'm so glad WM2003 supports it.
Isn't IPv6 just about 6 octets for more addresses?

JonnoB

07-10-2003, 03:10 AM

I think the real blocker to Bluetooth adoption is that no one has figured out how to make it work SIMPLY.

....

Until Bluetooth is truly plug and play, it will remain a marginal technology, hyped by many, used by few.

I agree completely. BT has (maybe had?) promise... but it could fail to succeed if these usability problems are not addressed. These forums alone are enough evidence of the problems people have with it. Other wireless technologies (like WiFi) even though not used for the same purposes - suffered the similar early implementation problems but quickly were resolved whereas BT has not and it has had lots of time already. Most likely a problem with certification and compatibility testing - someone has to take control of QA !!!

ctmagnus

07-10-2003, 05:21 AM

Hence IPv6. I'm so glad WM2003 supports it.
Isn't IPv6 just about 6 octets for more addresses?

Plus some other stuff. But the fundamental issue, imo, is that there will be that many more IP addresses to go around for your wifi Pocket PC, your wifi phone, your wifi camera, your wifi fridge, your wifi cuckoo clock, your wifi underwear...

Janak Parekh

07-10-2003, 06:18 AM

If you and Duncan were correct, BT would be everywhere by now.
No. New technologies take FOREVER to adopt. Two important points here.

1. Note that in my post, I said the BT SIG isn't enforcing profiles. This is a big big big problem. The BT SIG needs to grow teeth, and not only require manufacturers to do so, they should do compliance testing. (WiFi has some problems like this too, especially with 104-bit/128-bit WEP.)

2. Do all of you guys realize how many years it took for WiFi to hit the mass market? I was playing with WiFi technology in 1997 -- it was called Lucent WaveLAN, and it was only 1mbps, but it was totally functional. WiFi technology is 7 years old, or thereabouts. BT has gotten off the ground pretty darn fast, considering.

Until Bluetooth is truly plug and play, it will remain a marginal technology, hyped by many, used by few.
As per #1 above, I agree. The BT SIG should only certify fully compatible products that support a minimum of standards. I think that's a necessary thing. But the technology itself is fundamentally sound. At least, in my opinion. ;)

--janak