Dearly Beloved, We Gather Here Today To Pay Respects To Bluetooth

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20031013S0040">http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20031013S0040</a><br /><br />"Bluetooth is dead. There, I've said it. I feel better already. I've been thinking along these lines for more than three years, but that's the first time I've made it public. I'm very rarely inclined to trash such major efforts, but the jury's back, and really has been for a while. Bluetooth is toast, finished, over. Stick a fork in it. It's done."<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20031016-bluetoothdead.gif" /><br /><br />The author takes no pleasure in the above statement and neither do I. I wanted bluetooth to work. It showed great promise and even though I use it several times a week with my Nokia 3650 and iPAQ 2215, it is a frustrating experience to get set up and to this day, when you mention it to an average person, they have no clue what it is. No wonder it isn't a success. No one even knows what it is.<br /><br />Just yesterday I was talking with another Microsoft MVP about getting his MS bluetooth keyboard working with his iPAQ 5555. Forget about it. IR, as slow as it is and limited by point and shoot, it just works. USB cables just work. Serial cables work. Bluetooth may or may not work, and when the supposedly superior technology often can't do what the inferior technology can, and makes it more difficult in the process, people just walk on by.<br /><br />"In a few short years, many will look back on Bluetooth as a lesson on marketing gone awry. Most will still wonder what all the fuss was all about. Regardless, it's now time to move on."

[JustinGTP]

WHAT!!!!! And you tell me this now after I spent 80 bucks on a dongle!!!

All you non believers, bluetooth was a breeze for me!! Ahhhh, now my day is ruined I tell you!

-Justin :(

[cptpoland]

I use my Ipaq 2210 and my Nokia 6310i everyday. It was very simple to setup, and it works great. No hangups, no problems it just works. So my bluetooth headset doesn't sound as nice as a wired one....so what. I rather have that then get tangled in wires while I'm driving and pull the headset out of my ear. No thank you. I like my bluetooth.... so there. :lol:

CP

[Ed Hansberry]

I use my Ipaq 2210 and my Nokia 6310i everyday. It was very simple to setup, and it works great. No hangups, no problems it just works. So my bluetooth headset doesn't sound as nice as a wired one....so what. I rather have that then get tangled in wires while I'm driving and pull the headset out of my ear. No thank you. I like my bluetooth.... so there. :lol:
How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset? :wink:

[JohnJohn]

If this take turns out to be true...

To bad I don't own a large software or hardware company...buy up the rights/patents and re-release it correctly in 5years.

I always viewed it as wireless/pointless USB/IR. I thought my toaster and TV would have it soon. Woulda been sweet for automotive applications. Oh well. :D

[Jeff Rutledge]

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. I have a BT multiport on my laptop, iPAQ 3870, T68, HBH-30 headset. The implementation is so flaky that I don't use any of these devices often. The only pairing that works well is the headset with my cell phone, and I use my cell phone so rarely that it's not enough to sway me that BT has value.

[gohtor]

Don't worry. your bluetooth is still good for at least the next 2 years until the next best wireless solution is standardized. Somebody should just make a wireless version of USB if that's all all possible. The drivers and support is all there, only problem i forsee is that usb is a continously connected device which will complicate matters abit for the developers.

I'm still going to get a bluetooth phone. I plan to upgrade in the 2 years time which would suit very nicely if and when bluetooth's successor comes into the market.

[MitzEclipse]

I completely agree. I have bluetooth built into my laptop, in my Palm Tungsten T, and in many other pda's/phones/and handset's i've owned. It used to be a major factor whether or not I'd buy it... now I just don't care anymore.

[JvanEkris]

Aren't you rushing things Ed ???????

Bluetooth is one of those things you don't hear much about, but simply penetrates everything you own. In Europe, bluetooth penetration is rising rapidly. Availability of PC-based devices is going extremely fast (you can buy it everywere now for $20,-). Almost every medium to high end phone has bluetooth. Most high-end laptops have and a lot of PDA's too. Especially phones are amzingly easy to set up......

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does......

Jaap

[cptpoland]

Never tried using my bluetooth headset with my ipaq.... cool idea, but why would you? Can't think of any reason to.... if it was stereo headphones (which I believe do exist somewhere) then I can see it being used.....but a mono headset.... nah.
One thing that would be nice is to use all three at the same time.....which unfortunatelly does not work. I believe it's the fault of the Nokia and their implementation of bluetooth. I accepted that limitation though....

[Philip Colmer]

Mr Mathias has made the same mistake that other naysayers have made about Bluetooth.

It is NOT A NETWORK SYSTEM!

It is a CABLE REPLACEMENT SYSTEM!

It was never intended to replace WiFi. It certainly isn't intended to replace UWB!

Bluetooth is about replacing cables - pure and simple. Sure, some implementations make it difficult to get working but, often as not, that is because you are trying to "trick" the application into using Bluetooth when it thinks it is using a cable. ActiveSync is a perfect example. It doesn't know anything about Bluetooth, so you have to trick it into using a COM interface that is a Bluetooth serial port. It should be easy but I suspect the ActiveSync designers made too many assumptions about physical serial interfaces which leads to it being a bit problematic with BT interfaces.

And as for Microsoft's BT keyboard & mouse ... you've just got to look at the Logitech equivalent product to see how it SHOULD be done! The MS product doesn't even support all of the profiles or work with any hardware other than its own BT interface.

I don't think BT is dead. I think it has a purpose in life and we are seeing products that make use of that purpose. There was a very good article I read a few weeks ago that showed that BT is doing very well in the industrial arena where you might want to run sensors in an area where cabling is problematic, e.g. temperature of a vat. Take a temperature sensor with a BT sensor and drop it in :-) No cables, no problems.

Just got to use it for the purpose it was designed. Cable replacement.

--Philip

[Jeff Rutledge]

Very good points Phillip. Maybe it's more accurate to say my issue isn't one of expectation, but of implementation. I'm all for BT as a cable replacement technology. There just isn't much that's doing the job yet. And I think there have been too many kicks at the can now that consumer confidence is seriously waning.

[Ed Hansberry]

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does.....
ISDN Modem? :confused totally: Most people in the known universe don't even know what ISDN is and most of the rest of us have no use for it.

Just like bluetooth. Great analogy. :lol:

[cptpoland]

Cable replacement! Yeah! That's what I wanted to say :lol:

CP

[Don Tolson]

I disagree...yes, it's going through some growning pains -- like any new technology. But I see more 'buzz' about bluetooth and I'm seeing more devices being built with it integrated in.

I think it will settle down and become a viable cable replacement.

Personally, I've had pretty good experience with bluetooth. It's not quite 'plug and play' but it's a heck of a lot simpler networking than say, trying to get two Windows machines, on different versions of the OS, to talk to each other!

[Ed Hansberry]

I disagree...yes, it's going through some growning pains -- like any new technology.
Bluetooth got started in the early 90s and in 1996/1997 in earnest. We are less than 3 months away from 2004. Putting "bluetooth", "new" and "technology" in the same sentence is meaningless. I thought it was going to take off when PDAs and cell phones started putting it in. That was 2 years ago when the iPAQ 3800 shipped.

[Duncan]

How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset?

...and the point of connecting a mono headset to a Pocket PC is...?

I have had:

iPAQ 3870, iPAQ 3970, Pocket Loox 600, iPAQ 5450, three Bluetooth headsets, four Bluetooth phones (all Ericsson), three Bluetooth dongles (Belkin, Tecom, TDK), one Bluetooth printer adaptor, one Bluetooth printer, one Bluetooth enabled laptop....

Every single item (from EIGHT different firms - Compaq, HP, Ericsson, Belkin, Tecom, TDK, Sony, and one other with a silly name I can't recall) has worked with minimal setup (considerably less than any WiFi setup - never more than a couple of minutes) with all the devices it was supposed to interact with.

I cannot remember the last time I had to think about a Bluetooth connection. ActiveSync works easily and everytime over BT. My headsets and phones have always been seemless in operation.

In short - I cannot see where you find the problem Ed - I really can't... I'm not unique, nor am I an expert in BT.

I do know this - with every consumer technology it is a case of buyer beware. If people are dumb enough to buy MS BT keyboards without checking reviews they deserve what they get. The same goes with any poor BT implementation. Think - if I buy a US TV and find it won't work with my UK VCR - I don't blame the TV/video standards - I blame myself for not checking on compatibility. Why make the exception for BT?

Some companies - 3COM, MS etc. you avoid when it comes to BT - just like you kinow to avoid some companies for other consumer technology. That doesn't change the fact that countless companies BT products work together flawlessly...

Ed - I'm afraid you have lost all objectivity and perpective here. You speak of the lack of knowledge of BT in the US as if it is a world-wide thing - well, big news - in Europe people know about it, ask for it and the products are selling in higher and higher quantities. We can't help the fact that the US has been so backwards with mobile phone tech (the thing that has driven BT adoption in Europe) and it is so hard to get a CDMA BT phone. Fact is - Europe, Asia, Africa - all are adopting BT enthusiastically... and it will be with us for a long time to come!

Then the two examples you bring up - the MS keyboard (don't tell me you aren't aware that MS screwed up BT implementaion in their keyboard) - easier to blame BT eh? And the BT headset working with a 221x - a meaingless complaint since it is a pointless connection to make...

The simple fact is - some people have decided, based on their experiences, unrealistic expectations or national biases - that BT is a failure - and all the evidence in the world won't change their minds, not even those of us who cannot see where people are finding such difficulties...!

Sorry for the bluntness Ed - but I really think you have your blinkers on with BT and you are looking for reasons to declare it a failure when patently it ISN'T! :roll:

[Ed Hansberry]

In short - I cannot see where you find the problem Ed - I really can't...
Go back and read the post. I didn't write it. I just agreed with the article. I must not be alone in my feelings on this if others are saying it as well.

[normaldude]

Bluetooth and Wi-Fi have different purposes.

- Bluetooth is the wireless equivalent of USB cables. It's best for connecting non-computer devices like headsets, cellphones, keyboards, digital cameras, etc. It's not good for networking a bunch of computers together.

- Wi-Fi is the wireless equivalent of Cat5 cables. It's great for networking a bunch of computers together. But someone carrying a small cellphone (non-pda) in their pocket, and wireless headset on their ear.. with the two devices communicating with wi-fi? I haven't even seen wi-fi in standalone cellphones or headsets at all.

Bluetooth is just starting to take off. Bluetooth shipments are predicted to double by the end of 2003. http://silicon.com/news/500018/1/6441.html
We're just starting to see bluetooth appear in devices like headsets, keyboards, cars, printers, digital cameras, etc. I suspect the "Bluetooth is dead" writer is just frustrated that it's taken so long to pick up.

Some of his comments:

- Cellular handsets-the natural homeland of Bluetooth-will soon be hosting 802.11 radios.

For standalone cellphones coming to market, I only see Bluetooth, not Wi-Fi.

- And what's wrong with a wired headset, which is cheaper, better-sounding, lighter and more reliable-and without the silly blinking LED?

The wire itself.

[acronym]

bluetooth works perfectly on my desktop Macintosh os X
bluetooth works perfectly on my g4 powerbook os X
bluetooth works perfectly on my se t68
bluetooth somewhat works on my dell ppc wm2003
bluetooth somewhat works on my tablet tablet xp
bluetooth hardly works on my laptop windows xp

its nice to see the windows camp putting down an entire technology because it will not work correctly with THEIR operating system. Ever think of turning this soapbox into a rant against Microsofts' implementation? I mean, come on, have you seen the reverse engineering they did to get the bluetooth keyboard to work? HID over bluetooth, are you kidding me??
/not bashing microsoft, just stating the facts.

damn all those animated advertisements really slow down typing in forum replies.

[kwerner]

Bluetooth problems IMO:

1) Drivers, incompatibility between different company's devices

I bought a Pocket Loox over a year ago and never could get it to sync with my desktop via BT. Tried several USB adaptors. Bought an ipaq 2215 two months ago, works flawlessly with two of the dongles. The class 1(?) with 100m range is great (I have IOgear), I can use my ipaq anywhere in my house to access internet.

Also have a Powerbook with BT builtin and recently splurged for the new Apple mouse. Works pretty good, the mouse is a tad erratic (way too strong a word). Bluetooth part seems to work great, tap it and it connects back up with the laptop in a couple seconds. I haven't tried using the Apple mouse with my PC.

2) Lack of cell phones
Anyone know why there isn't one CDMA BT phone on the market??? Is it purely customer demand? I know there is supposed to be a Sprint network SonyEricsson phone coming out, but it has been delayed many times and SE has commented on dropping CDMA completely.

How are they marketing BT in Europe that would cause so many more GSM phones to have it (customer demand?)?

We in the US seem to be behind the times in cellphones, so I guess this is probably the reason. Not too many people use SMS, wireless internet, etc..., therefor, no demand for BT. Maybe if we get more laws against driving while holding a cellphone to your head, it will increase the demand for BT headsets - probably not until the cost for a BT headset approaches the cost of a $10 wired headset.

3) Price

The prices are finally making it worthwile to use BT now, a year ago you had to buy a $550 PDA to get BT, now you can have it builtin for $300

4) Ease of use

It tok me 30 minutes to get my ipaq to connect to my friends GPRS T68 phone. That's knowing some of the steps from when I setup my Loox 6 months before. There is almost no way a "typical" user could handle this complexity


That said, I love Bluetooth, the idea of buying $50 cables to hook all my gadgets together is crazy. Hopefully the rest of the world catches on soon :-)

[acronym]

actually, after re-reading the entire forum - I shouldn't have said "windows camp"

just a few, for whatever reason, decide to keep posting these rants on the front page. do we need to have a vendor provide you with bluetooth swag to keep quiet?

[Duncan]

Go back and read the post. I didn't write it. I just agreed with the article. I must not be alone in my feelings on this if others are saying it as well.

Ed,

I didn't say you were alone, and I know you didn't write the article, but you agree with the writer - even though much of what he says betrays a lack of understanding of the purose of BT! Also - unless I'm mistaken the reference to the headset and the 221x and the MS keyboard both came from you - and you know full well that neither are fair examples to pick up on...

As for BT being new - it isn't - it has achieved major market penetration in Europe and Asia and is working very well. Soon we will see version 2.0. It is a long time since the early days of flaky implementation on early Nokias (we are about five generations on from that), the early 3COM dongles, the flaky software on the 3870 (four generations on)...

No excuses need to be made for BT. It is mature, yet still improving further, and works well right now!

BTW - how long has 802.11b been in existence? Yet I wouldn't have let an ordinary consumer near it before this year (with implementations varying wildly in ease of use and interconnection)... Funny how double standards apply when looking at a wireless technology that has major US penetration...

[Ed Hansberry]

actually, after re-reading the entire forum - I shouldn't have said "windows camp"

just a few, for whatever reason, decide to keep posting these rants on the front page. do we need to have a vendor provide you with bluetooth swag to keep quiet?
You could also reread my post. What do I use several times a week?

[eustts]

I don't agree with the article. BT works and it works well.

[darrylb]

I dont agree with the author of the article quoted in Eds story.

I have found setting up BT connections has been easy. The only complicating factor is generally which version of th BT drivers are supported by the hardware.

The "it just works" thing for IR when used to compare to BT is not fair either. There is no security with IR, where BT supplies reasonably good security (hence the pairing). IR is more like a small data transmission option than a full blown cable replacement technology.

I see more and more bluetooth devices coming out and adoption getting more widespread. As for CDMA phones - I think their lack of availability reflects the future of some of the current CDMA implementations and will improve with the adoption of WCDMA - which is where GSM is going (where there are lots of BT phones).

[sprawlgeek]

Bluetooth doesn't work???

oh but it does.

and my back and shoulders thank bluetooth every day. I have thinned down my travel back by at least 50% over the last 6 months. I am the PROUD owner of....a bluetooth modem, a bluetooth headset, bluetooth gps, bluetooth adapters for my work tablet, and I own a bluetooth equiped 3970 ipaq. The cabling for the previous devices required soo much more storage and travel bulk. Not to mention the ease of mobility now. Walking down the street with a gps in one pocket and my ipaq in the other. OR Relaxing in a motel room with the bluetooth modem (no WIFI/broadband connection at this motel) sitting on the small workdesk(?). Bluetooth works. Bluetooth works extremely well given the right set of drivers, software and expectations. Do I hate the configuration nightmares??? YES. But all things happen in time. It wasn't all that long along that I was fighting with a Trumpet WINSOCK in win3.1............in a hotel room with a Compaq suitcase sized 286 "Portable"!!!! :roll:

sprawlgeek

[Duncan]

Bluetooth problems IMO:

4) Ease of use

It tok me 30 minutes to get my ipaq to connect to my friends GPRS T68 phone. That's knowing some of the steps from when I setup my Loox 6 months before. There is almost no way a "typical" user could handle this complexity

Now this I don't understand. I have a T68 and an iPAQ 2210. Setting them up took two minutes by following the easy, carefully explained wizard on the 2210. Set both devices to discoverable. Discover the T68 from the 2210. Say yes to creating a bond. Enter a four digit pin on both devices. Done. How did that take 30 minutes - or require any extra knowledge?

I'm genuinely curious because I hear things like this on PPC boards and I just have to wonder what people are doing to make something so simple, where your hand is held all the way (and which has four basic steps), so complex? My technophobic wife can and did set up a BT connection by herself - my ready test of how consumer friendly anything is!!! :)

Anyone know why there isn't one CDMA BT phone on the market??? Is it purely customer demand? I know there is supposed to be a Sprint network SonyEricsson phone coming out, but it has been delayed many times and SE has commented on dropping CDMA completely.

Two reasons:

1) Qualcom dragged their heels with regards to joining the BT Qualification group. Since they own CDMA that became an obatcle.

2) The US has historically favoured fractured CDMA networks (no more though - GSM is now growing much faster than CDMA in the US according to the latest figures). Since most of the world is GSM, and Nokia and Ericsson dominate, what has been their incentive to offer BT to the smaller GSM market?

Mind you - I don't know why Samsung have been so slow - maybe they encounter consumer resistance in the US because 'informed commentators' keep telling people BT is hard and a failure? :wink: (in all seriousness - it is a peculiarly American trait to think that if something isn't big in the US then it must be a failure - making for a self-fulfilling prophecy...)

That said, I love Bluetooth, the idea of buying $50 cables to hook all my gadgets together is crazy. Hopefully the rest of the world catches on soon

Well that's just it - the rest of the world caught on some time ago - and many of us are on our third or fourth generation of BT product already...! (though my first generation R520m still works perfectly!).

[Duncan]

So - if it's alright by you and your source Ed - Honda_Civic_Si, cptpoland, JvanEkris, Philip Colmer, Don Tolson, normaldude, acronym, eustts, darrylb, sprawlgeek and myself won't be attending the funeral since there seems little evidence of a body... (anyone have the coroner's report?) :lol:

BTW - I first read this thread on my Loox, connected to a Sony Ericsson T610, with a BT headset in my jacket pocket (used to ring my wife earlier), while on the bus home...

[JvanEkris]

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does.....
ISDN Modem? :confused totally: Most people in the known universe don't even know what ISDN is and most of the rest of us have no use for it.

Just like bluetooth. Great analogy. :lol:Apperantly, we are not in the same universe ;)

Jaap

[cptpoland]

I'm curious if are able to have all three devices connected via bluetooth at the same time? Here is a simple scenerio. Ipaq 2210 with Running Voice GSM, bluetooth headset, and bluetooth phone. Phone is in pocket.... and using the ipaq dial a number and be able to talk using the bluetooth headset. I have tried and tried with my Nokia 6310i, ipaq, and a headset. No go. I'm getting a SE T616, which apparently can support multiple bluetooth connections.
Have you tried this kind of setup Duncan?

CP

[ID64]

Oh, c'mon! This is load of cr$$p! I ma not usually make comments like that but this statement is just so wrong!

[Stillwater]

I have to strongly disagree that bluetooth is dead. IMO it is just becoming a mature product. Six months ago even the drivers were buggy and it was a pain to setup some configurations. How many people on this forum use the original drivers that ship with ANY product? Very few of my friends (even the extremely technically challenged ones) know to check the web site at least once when they buy new hardware.

My current setup works flawlessly (with the new drivers of course)
1. I use my t68i to connect to the net on my 5450,
2. to sync the 5450 (all the isuses i had were activestink probs, not bt),
3. I take my bluetooth doggle (with new drivers on a cd) and connect to the net on any machine with usb. The only prob is that i need to re-pair the bt on the each machine when switching machines. fine, no prob
4. I use my t68i as a remote for my machine to run powerpoint on sunday (way better than any other remote i have used)

All thanks to bluetooth. Does it need to get better and easier? Sure, but you don't disown your child just because he can't ride a bike very well yet.
You just let him gain a bit more experience and confidence. I think bluetooth will do some cool things if we can just let it mature some more.

[kwerner]

Now this I don't understand. I have a T68 and an iPAQ 2210. Setting them up took two minutes by following the easy, carefully explained wizard on the 2210. Set both devices to discoverable. Discover the T68 from the 2210. Say yes to creating a bond. Enter a four digit pin on both devices. Done. How did that take 30 minutes - or require any extra knowledge?

Making the two devices see each other and pair is rarely a problem in my experience, it's the next step that has been problematic... setting up the service/profile.

The "phone number" reqired to make the ipaq connect to the ATT T68 GPRS took a few minutes to find on the net. Then I had to find some code number in the phone menus and insert it into this "phone number". Then it just wouldn't work. Created a new connection on the ppc. Didn't work. Reset ipaq, didn't work. Cycle power on T68. Some other stuff??? All the sudden starts working. Once the connection is set it works great, no trouble at all now. Recently added a BT serial port to his phone so I could use the EasySMS free program to send SMS, works great. Just need to find a phone now!

By "rest of the world" , I meant "rest of the country" :-)

I'd love to get on the GSM bandwagon, I might break down and do it soon actually. The problem is limited coverage area in the US. Only major roads and urban areas are covered. One of the main benefits for carrying a cellphone is for emergency use when you are in a rural/low population area. If they would at least make some GSM phones with AMPS too, that would be great. Or if they'd make more GAIT GSM/TDMA/AMPS phones (with BT, color, etc).

[Wes Salmon]

I think this guy had his mind made up about Bluetooth before it even became even remotely common.

"Bluetooth is dead. There, I've said it. I feel better already. I've been thinking along these lines for more than three years, but that's the first time I've made it public.

So he's felt Bluetooth was "dead" for more than three years? Sounds like he hasn't even given it a chance. How many Bluetooth devices existed in 2000? Not many.

From my experience, Bluetooth could use improvement but is far from being "dead". It may have a raspy cough and a slight fever, but it's not fatal.

Right now I have 6 Bluetooth devices and once they get paired with another, they typically "just work" as advertised. I think the problem is the complexity of the setup. My wife probably couldn't get a Pocket PC paired with a Bluetooth phone to connect to the Internet, and that's the overall problem.

However, before XP, getting WiFi setup on a laptop/desktop was just as painful, yet it didn't die at all.

Bluetooth has its problems, that's for sure ... but I think this guy has been rooting for it to fail for years just so he could write this article. :)

[Ed Hansberry]

Honda_Civic_Si, cptpoland, JvanEkris, Philip Colmer, Don Tolson, normaldude, acronym, eustts, darrylb, sprawlgeek and myself won't be attending the funeral since there seems little evidence of a body... (anyone have the coroner's report?) :lol:
You guys sound like the designers of the Titanic as it was sinking. "This is a great ship! We are safe. This thing will never sink!" Meanwhile, your crew and guests are jumping over the rails.

[Duncan]

I'm curious if are able to have all three devices connected via bluetooth at the same time? Here is a simple scenerio. Ipaq 2210 with Running Voice GSM, bluetooth headset, and bluetooth phone. Phone is in pocket.... and using the ipaq dial a number and be able to talk using the bluetooth headset. I have tried and tried with my Nokia 6310i, ipaq, and a headset. No go. I'm getting a SE T616, which apparently can support multiple bluetooth connections.
Have you tried this kind of setup Duncan?

CP

If I'm on the net on my Loox or 2210 via T610 GPRS, and my phone rings, I answer via my heaset and the PPC simply stays connected - whether it is an active or passive connection I don't know (I'm a bloke so I don't multi-task!!! :wink: )

[Wes Salmon]

I'm curious if are able to have all three devices connected via bluetooth at the same time? Here is a simple scenerio. Ipaq 2210 with Running Voice GSM, bluetooth headset, and bluetooth phone. Phone is in pocket.... and using the ipaq dial a number and be able to talk using the bluetooth headset. I have tried and tried with my Nokia 6310i, ipaq, and a headset. No go. I'm getting a SE T616, which apparently can support multiple bluetooth connections.
From what I understand, you have to run Running GSM Voice in "passive" mode to have the Bluetooth headset work for outbound calls, yet I haven't tried it.

I have done this before:

iPaq 1945 connected to Pharos Bluetooth GPS
Connected to T68i to get real-time traffic information in the Pharos mapping software so I can route around it.

Two Bluetooth connections going at once, just not to the same device.

[Janak Parekh]

However, before XP, getting WiFi setup on a laptop/desktop was just as painful, yet it didn't die at all.
Bingo. People really don't remember WiFi in the old days, when it was a collection of incompatible devices, no WEP to speak of, etc. You guys obviously never used the pre-802.11b WaveLAN stuff -- it was an absolute horrific nightmare (early '90s equipment). It took years and years for WiFi to get where it is today.

--janak

[Duncan]

Making the two devices see each other and pair is rarely a problem in my experience, it's the next step that has been problematic... setting up the service/profile.

The "phone number" reqired to make the ipaq connect to the ATT T68 GPRS took a few minutes to find on the net. Then I had to find some code number in the phone menus and insert it into this "phone number". Then it just wouldn't work.

ummm... that isn't a BT problem you had but a GPRS one...!

[sprawlgeek]

Honda_Civic_Si, cptpoland, JvanEkris, Philip Colmer, Don Tolson, normaldude, acronym, eustts, darrylb, sprawlgeek and myself won't be attending the funeral since there seems little evidence of a body... (anyone have the coroner's report?) :lol:
You guys sound like the designers of the Titanic as it was sinking. "This is a great ship! We are safe. This thing will never sink!" Meanwhile, your crew and guests are jumping over the rails.

Ed-

Im sorry but I just don't see bluetooth taking on any water. Its design is to be a Cable replacement system. AND we are talking the first generation of tools. Wait until 3.0 releases to issue a verdict. Look at marketing history, how long did it take for the refridgerator to reach a majority of homes? the VCR, the DVD player? time will be the most accurate judge.

[Duncan]

Honda_Civic_Si, cptpoland, JvanEkris, Philip Colmer, Don Tolson, normaldude, acronym, eustts, darrylb, sprawlgeek and myself won't be attending the funeral since there seems little evidence of a body... (anyone have the coroner's report?) :lol:
You guys sound like the designers of the Titanic as it was sinking. "This is a great ship! We are safe. This thing will never sink!" Meanwhile, your crew and guests are jumping over the rails.

Evidence? If we are delusional (as we must be to support your assertion) give us some real proof. We've been giving you solid examples of how well BT works. So far you've given us a source that doesn't comprehend the purpose of BT and two very weak examples of bad implementation. I'm willing to listen to real concrete arguments but you need to make them first!!! 8)

[normaldude]

Honda_Civic_Si, cptpoland, JvanEkris, Philip Colmer, Don Tolson, normaldude, acronym, eustts, darrylb, sprawlgeek and myself won't be attending the funeral since there seems little evidence of a body... (anyone have the coroner's report?) :lol:
You guys sound like the designers of the Titanic as it was sinking. "This is a great ship! We are safe. This thing will never sink!" Meanwhile, your crew and guests are jumping over the rails.

Except that Bluetooth shipments are doubling every year, and just starting to appear in devices like headsets, keyboards, cars, printers, digital cameras. Meanwhile, wi-fi hasn't made a dent in the non-computer wireless market.

So a better analogy would be a guy standing at the train station, waiting for the 3pm train. 3pm, no train. 3:15pm, no train. Announcement over loudspeaker says train is late, but should be here by 3:30pm. The guy gets impatient, and walks away to an empty plot of land where there is a rumor that one day they may build a high speed train station.

Sure the Bluetooth train is late. But by all indications, it's just starting to pickup speed. And the alternative (wi-fi standalone cellphone, wi-fi headset, wi-fi keyboard) is total vaporware. People "jumping over the rails" are landing in ice cold water because the replacement lifeboats aren't there.

[freitasm]

I use my Ipaq 2210 and my Nokia 6310i everyday. It was very simple to setup, and it works great. No hangups, no problems it just works. So my bluetooth headset doesn't sound as nice as a wired one....so what. I rather have that then get tangled in wires while I'm driving and pull the headset out of my ear. No thank you. I like my bluetooth.... so there. :lol:
How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset? :wink:

How do you like the interaction between the Microsoft Bluetooth adapter and the 2215? Ah, the PC developers didn't want to enable the link that work for others? It's the same situation.

Don't blame the whole thing on a product maker that implements only the features the project managers "think" buyers will use.

While some say it's dead, some say it's alive. I think that a device that shipped 70 million units in a year (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=1563) is on its way to the plateau of productivity.

Think of home RF. Did it take off? No, it died slowly and no one noticed. What numbers we had for home RF? Less than the N-Gage sales in the first week probably (500 from game stores in UK apparently :wink: ).

Bluetooth can't be declared dead because it doesn't fit this category.

[Jason Dunn]

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does...

Funny you should mention ISDN modems - they never took off in my area. They stayed complex, expensive, and flaky - and eventually ISDN was completely overtaken by cable modem-based broadband.

I could very easily see that happening to Bluetooth as well - it's not improving fast enough, and a technology that actually WORKS properly could easily overtake it.

[Janak Parekh]

Funny you should mention ISDN modems - they never took off in my area. They stayed complex, expensive, and flaky - and eventually ISDN was completely overtaken by cable modem-based broadband.
Except that Bluetooth is already 1,000 times more successful than ISDN technologies. ;)

--janak

[acronym]

alright, and only because I have a hard time understanding your logic Ed, but what exactly is a microsoft mvp? does that denote some technical expertise, marketing or what?

[Jason Dunn]

bluetooth works perfectly on my desktop Macintosh os X...

This is a fair point - because OS X supports Bluetooth natively, Mac users seem to have no trouble getting Bluetooth set up. On the Windows side of things, however, we have 100's of different software implementations, and only a few of them seem to work worth a damn. What Bluetooth NEEDS to survive is for Microsoft to implement fast, simple, and stable Bluetooth support in Windows XP. Nothing else will give Bluetooth the live it needs to keep surviving. Well, perhaps UI training classes for every developer who works on Bluetooth software... :roll: :lol:

damn all those animated advertisements really slow down typing in forum replies.

Animated banners make your fingers move slower? Sorry to hear that. :lol:

[Rok]

Isn't it somewhat strange that all new (released and announced) mid-to-top-range PDAs (both PPC and PalmOS) have builtin BT? I mean, if this technology (which I use without any hassles on a daily basis) is really dead, it's a pretty lively corpse!

One of the previous posters hit the nail on the head squarely: it's a simple matter of American ignorance. If it doesn't take off in the States, it's a failure.

Reality check: the rest of the world doesn't give a rats' rear end whether or not you believe BT is dead. We'll just continue to use it like we have for some time now. :mrgreen:

Cheers,
Rok

[kiwi]

One of the previous posters hit the nail on the head squarely: it's a simple matter of American ignorance. If it doesn't take off in the States, it's a failure.

Rok

heh.. it almost seems that way! I have friends who went to Europe recently and saw what I meant when I said GSM phones and txt messaging is huge there as it is downunder. Its catching on here in Canda, but we must remember consumers are consumers.. simple bells and whistles sell.. i was trying to explain BT technology to my friends last week en route to Montreal.. ah.. it helped pass the drive time!

b.

[Duncan]

Funny you should mention ISDN modems - they never took off in my area. They stayed complex, expensive, and flaky - and eventually ISDN was completely overtaken by cable modem-based broadband.

I could very easily see that happening to Bluetooth as well - it's not improving fast enough, and a technology that actually WORKS properly could easily overtake it.

Flawed logic.

Bluetooth does work - and is not easily replaced (having such deep and widespread market penetration).

In Europe ISDN was business driven. Broadband/cable is consumer driven - so the former didn't impact on the latter (bb/cable builds on the foundations of 56k modems).

Two different models.

Things may be different in N America but sorry - you ain't leading the way in mobile comms - Europe and Asia are... so N America will need to play catch up...

[jonathanchoo]

I have to disagree.

I am in Europe and Bluetooth is major here. I have a bluetooth headset which I use with my T39, then the T68m and now on my Ericsson T610. Works well after I upgraded the firmware of my phone - no hissing for up to 8 metres. Voice calling/rejecting is fine. I can keep my phone in my bag all the time.

My previous PDA was the h2210, pairing bluetooth with my T610 was a nightmare but worked. Managed to get connected to the net dialing my ISP and then using my GPRS. Now I am using a Tungsten T3 and the pairing between the PDA and the T610 is heaven. It works like a charm. Turning it off requires only 2 strokes and using a program (BTtoggle), I can automatically turn on Bluetooth for any applications that requires it and it also turn off Bluetooth once switch off or exit the application. The best so far is SMS that comes with the PDA. The T610 has very limited memory for SMS, so being able to download all at once to my PDA without using infrared was a hugh plus. Connecting through my o2 GPRS using WebPro 3 on my Palm was also easy. The speed is bearable. GPRS is not as fast as WiFi, but the ability to receive e-mail on the move (eg. on the train or in the countryside) far outweighs the speed of WiFi. Sure when WiFi starts popping up everywhere including on trains then I might switch but so far I am not impress. The Starbucks/T-Mobile thing is way overhyped and expensive. The best place I found I could use WiFi was on the beach at Brighton but it is only limited to 50 metres when I tested the Tungsten C and e750 there.

The other enjoyment - gaming. With Bluetooth multiplayer gaming is not limited to infrared. And it saves battery. Imagine playing games on your PDA with WiFi turned on!

So far what I can think off is it is not dead. It complements WiFi. It does not brute speed to accomplish simple stuff like connecting different PDAs/Mobile phones together. If my T610 is equipped with WiFi and there is a WiFi headset - how long do you think the battery will last? Do you need a 100 metre WiFi range just to use a headset?

Bluetooth might got off to a bad start in the US, but it the user base is growing in the UK. Many people have bluetooth but don't realise it. There are alot of cool Bluetooth stuffs around. I use Bluetooth to HotSync (previously ActiveSync) my T3. Yes it could be faster than WiFi. But WiFi isn't without problems. The security for one thing could be better.

[Ed Hansberry]

Evidence? If we are delusional (as we must be to support your assertion) give us some real proof. We've been giving you solid examples of how well BT works. So far you've given us a source that doesn't comprehend the purpose of BT and two very weak examples of bad implementation. I'm willing to listen to real concrete arguments but you need to make them first!!! 8)
Duncan, your whole argument is "it works for me, so you must be an idiot. There are no problems."

Why do you think there is this negative sentement. Check out the slashdot.org thread on this very article.

AND we are talking the first generation of tools. Wait until 3.0 releases to issue a verdict. Look at marketing history, how long did it take for the refridgerator to reach a majority of homes? the VCR, the DVD player? time will be the most accurate judge.

Early refridgerators didn't refuse to work with certain wall outlets or just quit working because they didn't like the color of the floor they were placed on. Your comment that this is first generation and we should wait for V3? Come on. Like people will endure this pain through V2.

Listen people, I want it to work. I really do. I am not on some anti-BT jihad. I was thrilled when I got my 3870 2 years ago and was eager to find something to connect to.

• Dale Coffing and I could not transfer a 730KB file via BT between two 3870's. At around 300KB, it quit. Over and over, numerous soft resets. We finally stopped being cool and did it over IR.
• The HanDBase conference I attended tried to demo record transfers between two M505s with Palm branded BT SDIO cards. They couldn't even see each other. THe hardware wasn't defective as some of us in the audience could see both M505s, some that had M505s with the SDIO card. I could see both on my 3870. THey couldn't see each other though.
• I just about chucked my laptop and iPAQ through the wall trying to get an Anycom BT PCMCIA card working. Instead, I just settled for a $120 refund.
• Getting a partnership between my Nokia 3650 and 3900 and subsequent 2215 was not for the faint of heart.

Still, I enjoy the wireless access it affords me, but I in no way try to convince any of my non-geek friends to even bother with it simply because I don't want to fool with setting their devices up for them. Remember people, these are the ones that got nailed by blaster because they never ran Windows Update since buying their PC 2 years ago, so MS had to write an ActiveX control to go in and automatically configure the firewall and Automatic Updates for them and will in all likelyhood turn Automatic Updates on by default in the next OS, if not the next service pack.

So quit jumping all over me as if this is the Ed Crusaide To Kill Bluetooth. It isn't. But I'd bet money if I were a betting man that the cable replacement technology we are using in 2007 won't be bluetooth or any successors to it.

[JustinGTP]

I havent jumped over the board just yet on Bluetooth,

Since my father will not get into the WiFi scene because of security issues he has with it, Bluetooth is my answer because I have passwords and I can decide who can connect with my Bluetooth dongle. This is the answer for me for wireless internet, it was a lot cheaper, and is acceptable in my house.

I still think that as long as I have a BT PDA and my Dongle, Im just happy as it is. Anyways, you may decide what you want to do with BT, I have decided what I want to do with it.

And, no, I am not attending that funeral because I dont believe there will even be one!

-Justin.

[szamot]

I think BT is dead, let's just close the lid on this and move on over to something that has both the range and reliability, something that your ordinary Joe-six-pack can understand and use. Imagine if IR was as buggy as BT is, where would the audio/video industry be today – still working on wired remote controls – no thanks. More importantly why aren’t the same manufacturer jumping on the BT wagon if it is so good, certainly the range is there.

This makes me wonder how many of you die hard “geeks” actually use BT on daily basis. I don’t, I have not used it once, my iPAQ has it, but I just don’t feel compelled to invest in another protocol just so I can sync my PDA out of my next room, Wi Fi is there for that and it does a wonderful job. Let’s just face it, we were all duped by an ill executed marketing ploy in believing that this is something worth holding on to, well there is nothing to hold on to. Aside from PDA’s there are almost no other BT devices on the market other than a handful of peripherals throw into the mix. For technology that is trying to make a name for itself, it, BT, is certainly not trying very hard to convince the world of its existence. Amen
now.

[daS]

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does......
Well I guess the universe you know ends at the Atlantic Ocean, since ISDN is close to a dead technology here in the US. On this side of the pond, it's ADSL or cable modems for broadband. Strangely the prices for these much faster services are far cheaper than for ISDN here, since they are offered with flat rates while ISDN has per minute charges.

That said, I agree with your point. Bluetooth still has one problem to solve and that's ease of use. But why would anyone think that some newer technology will pass it up? Do we all forget the problems that Wi-Fi, USB, PCMCIA, PCI, etc. all had in their first few years of adoption?

More on this subject will follow in an article to be posted on BluetoothNews (www.bluetoothnews.com), and I'm sure in our panel discussion at the Pocket PC Summit on Monday.

[Ed Hansberry]

alright, and only because I have a hard time understanding your logic Ed, but what exactly is a microsoft mvp? does that denote some technical expertise, marketing or what?
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

[JvanEkris]

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does...

Funny you should mention ISDN modems - they never took off in my area. They stayed complex, expensive, and flaky - and eventually ISDN was completely overtaken by cable modem-based broadband.

I could very easily see that happening to Bluetooth as well - it's not improving fast enough, and a technology that actually WORKS properly could easily overtake it.Well,

Before Cable-modems and ASDL really took off, ISDN had a penetration of above 30% in europe: not bad for a product that once was a nightmare to set up. What triggered it's demise ? Flat-fee rating.....

Bluetooth however is on a roll here. I think one very big difference is, as i understand it, that bluetooth enabled phones are extremely popular (as well as bluetooth based GPS-units) in Europe. While in the United States GSM-phones and GPRS are in their infancy. When CDMA phones do not support bluetooth, market penetration becomes a lot more difficult......

Jaap

Jaap

[Ramin]

To all you naysayers... :roll: Bluetooth works well for me. :razzing:

I've been using a SonyEricsson T68i paired to a SonyEricsson HBH-30 Bluetooth Headset, a Compaq iPAQ h3870 (with Running Voice GSM installed) and an MSI MS-6967 Bluetooth dongle, for well over a year... no complaints at all - It's easy to pair and use. 8) I just can't imagine life without Bluetooth (and cables everywhere!). :twisted:

Most of you guys are complaining about Bluetooth because you're probably stuck with the Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard and mouse combo - I suggest you ditch that and try out the Logitech Bluetooth keyboard and mouse - it works like a dream and supports a greater number of profiles.

Similarly, Nokia Bluetooth phones also seem to be incompatible with other Bluetooth products. I think this is more Nokia's fault than the Bluetooth SIG. In future, do a little research before buying Bluetooth hardware and save yourself the trouble of whining later. ;)

Who knows what Craig Mathias' agenda is... but who cares? :razzing: Bluetooth is here, and here to stay. :mrgreen:

[JustinGTP]

Thats the thing, I think that the Bluetooth should atleast have a 100metre range on the actual PDA itself, then you can utilize the range atleast


10 metres isnt all that great, as I have figured out from personal use. Maybe if they had (class 1 i think is 100m) on all PDAs then BT may be more useful, and to set it up on your PC has to be easier aswell. But once you got it done, it works like a breeze.

-Justin.

[hollis_f]

Honda_Civic_Si, cptpoland, JvanEkris, Philip Colmer, Don Tolson, normaldude, acronym, eustts, darrylb, sprawlgeek and myself won't be attending the funeral since there seems little evidence of a body... (anyone have the coroner's report?) :lol:
You guys sound like the designers of the Titanic as it was sinking. "This is a great ship! We are safe. This thing will never sink!" Meanwhile, your crew and guests are jumping over the rails.

Yup, some of them are leaping over the sides. But they're escaping from a ship that is, in Europe at least, going full steam ahead.

As for ease of use -
Last week I was out shopping with a friend when he decided he wanted a PPC. So we started out to find the best price we could get on a 2210. In the first shop we entered my friend asked to try one out. He then paired to his T68i, set up a dial-up connection and connected to his web site. total time - about 2.5 minutes. Now he's a computer savvy guy - but this was without instructions or a manual.

He was also thinking about getting a Microsoft BT keyboard. Luckily I warned him off - otherwise he might also have dived off the boat. If BT is feeling unwell it's because of a lot of companies giving us totally crap implementations - Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Fujitsu-Siemans are big companies that have no excuse for the heartache they put their customers through with their restrictive BT software.

[CTSLICK]

Until the mythical mini-WiFi makes it into cell phones then I am sticking with Bluetooth. BT with my T68 and an Axim works great. Easy to set up and it works reliably.

But I will say that BT as a means of connecting wireless to my PC has little value to me based on my recent experience trying to use a BT USB adapter. Not easy, not reliable, feels like a beta set up.

I think Janek posted earlier in this thread about the fact the everyone is forgetting about how hard wireless was to begin with. I agree. But the difference here is that there wasn't any competion for WiFi at the time. You dealt with WiFi problems because it was the only way. BT in this case is trying to bust in as the competition but the OEM's first attempts to penetrate the market have been poor.

In the end...so what if its sinking as an accepted wireless standard. Its sinking slow enough to allow me to get to the lifeboats.

[JvanEkris]

I disagree...yes, it's going through some growning pains -- like any new technology.
Bluetooth got started in the early 90s and in 1996/1997 in earnest. We are less than 3 months away from 2004. Putting "bluetooth", "new" and "technology" in the same sentence is meaningless. I thought it was going to take off when PDAs and cell phones started putting it in. That was 2 years ago when the iPAQ 3800 shipped.
So Bluetooth is a 7 year old product.
how long has 802.11b been in existence? Yet I wouldn't have let an ordinary consumer near it before this year (with implementations varying wildly in ease of use and interconnection)... Funny how double standards apply when looking at a wireless technology that has major US penetration...WiFi needed 11 years to mature. The first prototypes were an absolute nightmare to set up. The Bluetooth SIG has 4 years to get it right then..... Seeing the condition it is in know, it is ahead of WiFi at the same age.

The argument of WiFi connecting cell-phones is not a good one, IMHO. WiFi isn't versatile enough to capture all the uses bluetooth covers. Also power-consumption of WiFi is much bigger than bluetooth (that is due to simple physics, not due to design flaws).

Personally i think they both have their uses, and people have to be patient while a product loses the hype-feeling and becomes accepted technology. Declaring it dead when the hype is over, is a bit premature to me......

Jaap

Jaap

[hoffm11]

From Bluetooth.com

Bluetooth is booming
Oct. 2nd

http://www.bluetooth.com/news/news.asp?A=2&PID=965&ARC=1&WHERE=&TENS=

[DrtyBlvd]

How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset?

...and the point of connecting a mono headset to a Pocket PC is...?


...Voice instruction from NavMan GPS :D

[JustinGTP]

This technology needs time to evolve, just like the thing that you are looking at to view this. I needs time to grow and expand and become that much more reliable and cheaper to bloom.

I dont want BT to go, its just came in for me!

-Justin

[JvanEkris]

bluetooth works perfectly on my desktop Macintosh os X...

This is a fair point - because OS X supports Bluetooth natively, Mac users seem to have no trouble getting Bluetooth set up.Not only on OS X, on the new Linux Kernels almost all Bluetooth hardware works without a flaw with one driver. IMHO, it is just a matter of time before this driver gets ported to windows. My server functions as a bluetooth Access point with this driver for 6 months with no problems with installing or using.....

Jaap

[boldbidder]

I'm curious if are able to have all three devices connected via bluetooth at the same time? Here is a simple scenerio. Ipaq 2210 with Running Voice GSM, bluetooth headset, and bluetooth phone. Phone is in pocket.... and using the ipaq dial a number and be able to talk using the bluetooth headset. I have tried and tried with my Nokia 6310i, ipaq, and a headset. No go. I'm getting a SE T616, which apparently can support multiple bluetooth connections.
Have you tried this kind of setup Duncan?

CP

I have a UX50, T-Mo SET610, and a Jabra freespeak. The scenario you described I use dozens of times each day. In fact on many occasions my phone never leaves my hip. Now that I've experienced this loosely coupled bliss I'll never return to a setup that doesn't offer me the flexibility of BT.

[Duncan]

Evidence? If we are delusional (as we must be to support your assertion) give us some real proof. We've been giving you solid examples of how well BT works. So far you've given us a source that doesn't comprehend the purpose of BT and two very weak examples of bad implementation. I'm willing to listen to real concrete arguments but you need to make them first!!! 8)
Duncan, your whole argument is "it works for me, so you must be an idiot. There are no problems."

Why do you think there is this negative sentement. Check out the slashdot.org thread on this very article.

OK. The day I use Slashdot threads as evidence of the success of a consumer technology is the day I will need my head examined! Please tell me you weren't being serious Ed!:lol:

As for my argument - that is an unfair characterisation. I have backed up with clear examples my reasons for saying that BT is not a failure and genuinely do not understand why 'some' people have such a hard time with it. At no point did I say they must be idiots - but yes I am confused by people finding it complex...

Listen people, I want it to work. I really do. I am not on some anti-BT jihad. I was thrilled when I got my 3870 2 years ago and was eager to find something to connect to.

• Dale Coffing and I could not transfer a 730KB file via BT between two 3870's. At around 300KB, it quit. Over and over, numerous soft resets. We finally stopped being cool and did it over IR.
• The HanDBase conference I attended tried to demo record transfers between two M505s with Palm branded BT SDIO cards. They couldn't even see each other. THe hardware wasn't defective as some of us in the audience could see both M505s, some that had M505s with the SDIO card. I could see both on my 3870. THey couldn't see each other though.
• I just about chucked my laptop and iPAQ through the wall trying to get an Anycom BT PCMCIA card working. Instead, I just settled for a $120 refund.
• Getting a partnership between my Nokia 3650 and 3900 and subsequent 2215 was not for the faint of heart.

Still, I enjoy the wireless access it affords me, but I in no way try to convince any of my non-geek friends to even bother with it simply because I don't want to fool with setting their devices up for them. Remember people, these are the ones that got nailed by blaster because they never ran Windows Update since buying their PC 2 years ago, so MS had to write an ActiveX control to go in and automatically configure the firewall and Automatic Updates for them and will in all likelyhood turn Automatic Updates on by default in the next OS, if not the next service pack.

So quit jumping all over me as if this is the Ed Crusaide To Kill Bluetooth. It isn't. But I'd bet money if I were a betting man that the cable replacement technology we are using in 2007 won't be bluetooth or any successors to it.

Yet again Ed - you pick on those few products that have/had flaky implementation. The iPAQ 3870? The m505? Hey - you should see the problems I have getting internet access with my 486 DX PC and 4k modem... C'mon Ed! This is 2003 and we are several generations on from those products - both of which had notoriaously poor BT implementation (when I had a 3870 - I was anti-Bluetooth for heavens sake...!:lol: - though even the 3870 was redeemed with updates...!)

I can't comment on your Anycom PC Card (I know nothing about it) but the 3650 had a fault in its BT firmware - which is correctable (not a BT issue but a Nokia issue). I have a friend who uses his with an iPAQ 5450 and has had no problems. His first BT setup I might add and I didn't help him with it...

I'll tell you something - BT is an easy sell to my friends - they love it! But WiFi scares the hell out of them - yet it is still successfully sold as a consumer technology.

You know - I get what you are saying about making tech easier - but, to paraphrase an old professor of mine, if you make a technology idiot proof you'll only get idiots using it. My VCR is the latest model, with everything made as simple as possible - but I still end up recording the wrong things... how consumer friendly do you think BT style tech CAN be made? I think you are looking for the impossible...

So Ed - I don't think you are on a crusade against BT BUT I do think some past experiences have coloured the way you look at the tech so you only see the bad.

Oh and that bet - I never gamble - so I'll happily take your bet as I wouldn't want to say no to a sure thing...! 8)

Just one more point. Bluetooth has a wide range of backing - and despite szamot's peculiar belief to the contrary is available in an astonishing range of products - too many to list even the different types here...! Bearing in mind the pigs-ear being made of recordable DVD standards etc. - what are the chances of an alternative technology to BT coming along and getting the same level of support and backing? Realistically - none. Several potential standards have been talked about (some have even been and gone - HomeRF for example) but these are fractured in their supporters and backers - plus some of these newer techs have problems due to differing international wireless standards (both WirelessUSB and UWB will have problems in the UK and EU for example). BT isn't in the same boat.

BUT more to the point. For most users it works and works well - with a solid base for the future. Is it flawed? Yes - as is WiFi. But the base exists on which to improve the existing standard. Trying to come up with a replacement that has no flaws would be a monumental waste of years of good work...

[Thinkingmandavid]

Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Fujitsu-Siemans are big companies that have no excuse for the heartache they put their customers through with their restrictive BT software.

This is an accurate statement. Instead of blaming bluetooth, blame the companies that are so money hungry that they arent making a standard of bluetooth so that no matter what device it is, it all works TOGETHER.
Now I know you are thinking that may not happen, I am talking about the companies working together for one, and all blue tooth devices working together for two.
If the companies are going to include bt in their devices, then they need to make it that the hp works with the dongle from this company, the MS keyboard works with this cell phone and pda from that company, and you get my point.
If I remember correctly bt is a sony product that they licensed out. I also remember on the front page how they now had the ability to have two bt devices connect within 3 seconds. They were more interested in a license than helping the everyday conumser.

[Duncan]

How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset?

...and the point of connecting a mono headset to a Pocket PC is...?


...Voice instruction from NavMan GPS :D

Well - if you really want to - (how's your German?): http://pdassi.de/vshop/product.php?id=1438&prod_id=13048

[James Fee]

So Ed - I don't think you are on a crusade against BT BUT I do think some past experiences have coloured the way you look at the tech so you only see the bad.
All I see is Ed being honest. I don't agree with him, but he is correct. Unless BT gets its act together, it won't take off at least here in states (well Canada too eh?).

[Duncan]

Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Fujitsu-Siemans are big companies that have no excuse for the heartache they put their customers through with their restrictive BT software.

This is an accurate statement. Instead of blaming bluetooth, blame the companies that are so money hungry that they arent making a standard of bluetooth so that no matter what device it is, it all works TOGETHER.
Now I know you are thinking that may not happen, I am talking about the companies working together for one, and all blue tooth devices working together for two.
If the companies are going to include bt in their devices, then they need to make it that the hp works with the dongle from this company, the MS keyboard works with this cell phone and pda from that company, and you get my point.
If I remember correctly bt is a sony product that they licensed out. I also remember on the front page how they now had the ability to have two bt devices connect within 3 seconds. They were more interested in a license than helping the everyday conumser.

BT was originally developed by Ericsson - then expnded by a consortium from several compnies.

What sometimes gets forgotten is that problems with BT connections between two devices are only very rarely due to software faults - often it is a case of a software provider leaving out (Nokia, 3COM and whatever the company is called now that makes Plugfree for the Pocket Loox being prime culprits) some of the functionality/profiles that make up the BT spec. There is no good reason to do this (and, indeed, profiles can be added after the product has gone out...!) but it does mean that sometimes a BT product is working perfectly - but the company behind it has decided to restrict what it is allowed to do...!

Of course I needn't point out, I'm sure, that some WiFi manufacturers have done exactly the same in the past? Or that there are numerous capabilities of IR that get left out of a lot of products (e.g. consumer IR, FastIRDA etc.).

If every company putting out a BT product enabled every needed profile and all capabilities - I don't think a thread such as this would ever exist. This is starting to happen as more and more manufacturers, who have been silly in the past, change tack (often by going down the increasingly defacto WIDCOMM standard route). Nokia have improved on this, Sony have too, Fujitsu-Siemens are moving towards WIDCOMM as a standard, 3COM are doing better...

[sprawlgeek]

Ok, I want to believe im on the edge of things but just to play out this thread, will someone educate me????

Is there any technology out there today-
or with a confirmed release date-
or even highlighted in a press release or powerpoint-

that can replace the bluetooth technology?

Show me where.

ok that being said. Lets go back to marketing 101. For any new technology or service to go the distance it has to offer "10X" the value of the product it is replacing. For me and some of the peers in the thread that "10X" challenge has been meet. For others it hasn't.

as for 1x vs 3x Releases. Lets be fair here. I would argue that anyone participating in this thread is by default an early adopter and not truly reflective of the consumer base. How many in this thread, can actually go out and buy a bluetooth accessory in a retail store? Best Buy just started carrying one (thats 1!!!) compact flash model this month. How can we judge the acceptance when it hasn't reached full potential. We ARE on the edge of technology. BTW, what do you think the average life expectancy is of a PDA? just curious. How many people are still actively using IPAQs/PDA pre 3800 bluetooth? Just how large is the sample base of active users of bluetooth? Is this a failure of bluetooth or just the fact that we are in the early foot of the curve of the path of bluetooth? Manufacturers will position and argue and handicap technology in that early foot of the curve. Look back to the early days of the PC. You will examples of that time and time again, until the OEMS got on board and meet the consumer demands.

I doubt that anyone of us can truthfully answer all of this questions?

So again, history will be the judge, not me.

sprawlgeek

[Jason Dunn]

Quite the passionate response this article is having on people. 8O

I judge a technolgy based on my success at using it. Here's my Bluetooth track record:

- Anycom Bluetooth CF Card - March 2002 - a complete nightmare (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/articles.php?action=expand,719). Nasty software (Anycom).

- Socket CF + T68i - November 2002 - took about 15 minutes, worked well. Great software (Socket).

- Socket CF + Nokia phone - December 2002 - took about 5 minutes, worked well. Great software (Socket).

- Iogear USB for desktop - March 2003 - spent 60 minutes at it, swore at manual, gave up.

- iPAQ to iPAQ Bluetooth - May 2003 - spent 3 minutes getting two devices to see each other, worked very well (HP software).

- iPAQ 2215 to Desktop w/Iogear Bluetooth USB dongle - spent about 60 minutes, got it mostly working. I'm able to sync and surf via the desktop, but it was a fight and my 2nd time as it. The software is clumsy, and not a solution I'd reccomend to most people.

- Socket CF Bluetooth card in my Fujitsu P5010D laptop. Spent hours trying to get it to work or to pair with anything. No dice. Horrific desktop software bundle - very hostile to the user. Tried again and again at Mobius to allow a Dell Axim to get network access through my laptop.

So as you can see, I've had success and failure with Bluetooth. I don't blame the technology, I blame the implementation. The same Socket card works great in a Pocket PC, but badly in my laptop. The difference? The software.

I don't think Bluetooth is dead, but I think it's gasping for breath - it needs a saviour or it WILL die. If Bluetooth chips only cost $5 to implement, why didn't my $400 printer come with one?

I was buying a new mouse, and rather than get the Microsoft Bluetooth mouse, I chose to get the RF version. Why? Because I knew it would just work. Duncan, I have a feeling you're the kind of person that actually reads the manual and follows everything to the letter - most people aren't like that. If a device takes more than about three steps to set up, it's too complicated for most people.

[cptpoland]

So Ed - I don't think you are on a crusade against BT BUT I do think some past experiences have coloured the way you look at the tech so you only see the bad.
All I see is Ed being honest. I don't agree with him, but he is correct. Unless BT gets its act together, it won't take off at least here in states (well Canada too eh?).

Why isn't it taking off in Canada? Simple..... cell carriers just started carrying bluetooth phones. I think the SE T68i was the first bluetooth phone that was available through an actual carrier (Rogers AT&T), then there was Nokia 6310..... and that was really not to long ago (months). Forget about Telus, or Bell...
Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard combo..... I have yet to see it in an actual store. Then again why a regular consumer would pay $300CDN for a mouse and keyboard when they can get a wireless combo for 1/3 of the price (sans bluetooth, but to a regular consumer that doesn't matter... what matter is there is no cables).
In my opinion the real functionality of bluetooth is not a desktop keyboard or mouse, but it's the mobility. The fact I can use my PDA, my phone, my headset without being overrun and choked with cables is the best thing in the world. Being able to access my email anywhere my cell has a signal is what I want.
WiFi is great but waiting for "hotspots" to arrive in Canada (especially) in Edmonton is like waiting for palm trees to grow... (for those who don't know it's North Canada).... and then you are confined to this one perticular spot..... can't be traveling on a bus.

CP

[Duncan]

All I see is Ed being honest. I don't agree with him, but he is correct. Unless BT gets its act together, it won't take off at least here in states (well Canada too eh?).

Oh I don't think Ed is being dishonest! Good lord no! Just blinkered.

I'm not sure I understand the second thing you say - you don't agree with him but he is correct? Do you mean you don't agree that BT is doomed but it needs to improve to take off in the US and Canada? If so - and I'm presuming to speak for the several billion people who live outside the US and Canada here ( :wink: ) - not really a problem... the US and Canada will catch up eventually (just as they are starting to with mobile phone tech ;)... as they will eventually with television/radio technology etc.).

Hell - we both (N America AND Europe) have to look at SE Asia to find out what's coming next as it is...! :)

[acronym]

damn all those animated advertisements really slow down typing in forum replies.

Animated banners make your fingers move slower? Sorry to hear that. :lol:

maybe its just me. "look! something shiny!"

[sprawlgeek]

Quite the passionate response this article is having on people.

I judge a technolgy based on my success at using it. Here's my Bluetooth track record:
.......
So as you can see, I've had success and failure with Bluetooth. I don't blame the technology, I blame the implementation. The same Socket card works great in a Pocket PC, but badly in my laptop. The difference? The software.

VERY GOOD points jason!

in the end, if the technology meets that 10X hurdle and people want to use it instead of cables. The consumer will buy from the OEM that provides the easy clean implementation. Those that don't, will lose the marketshare and either quit, or VERY quickly improve their software bundles.

sprawlgeek

[jonathanchoo]

Actually Bluetooth is dead easy you won't need a manual to get it working. The only time you might need to check the manuls is to check the passkey. Maybe it is just Microsoft's products which has difficulty in conencting to Bluetooth. On my T3 it was so much easier setting a partnership with my T610 compared to my old h2210.

Setting partnership between my girlfriend's T610, set a name, partner both out headsets give them uniques ID and thats it!

As for mouse/keyboard - I don't use them personally because I don't need to. Bluetooth is more for devices exchanging information. There are many RF mouse/keyboard out there Bluetooth won't be able to compete. However there aren't any phones or PDAs out there which operates on the same RF frequency are there?

[Jason Dunn]

Oh I don't think Ed is being dishonest! Good lord no! Just blinkered.

And I think you're being "blinkered" to the fact that the vast majority of Bluetooth implementations are FAR too difficult to set up and get working.

Look, if I can't get a piece of technology up and running within 5 minutes, then it's too hard for any of my friends to get working and something is wrong with the implementation of that technology. Duncan, I sense a lot of arrogance coming from you in this regard - you seem to want to come out and say "Anyone who can't get Bluetooth working is an idiot", but you only hint at it. If you think anyone who says Bluetooth is still too difficult is an idiot, so be it. I'm an idiot.

I can accept that WiFi was difficult to use - I remember in 2001 WiFi was a bit mysterious and took some Mojo to get working. But I also remember seeing all the promises of Bluetooth at the same time - printers with Bluetooth built-in, mobile phones, headsets, etc. That was two years ago, and the promise of Bluetooth still waits to be fulfilled - meanwhile 802.11b has arrived and is dead easy to get working, and I just bought an 802.11g access point that I imagine will take a few minutes to get set up and working. I'm still waiting for Bluetooth to arrive at that point. Maybe it will with time, but it sure seems like it's a long time coming...

Bluetooth is far, far away from being a ubiquitous technology. If it's a cable replacement technology like you say it's supposed to be, then it should be nearly as simple as plugging in a cable. Until it gets to that point, it will not be worth the hassle for 95% of the world. The people in this forum championing Bluetooth are not normal users, and you all need to remember that.

[Steven Cedrone]

As for mouse/keyboard - I don't use them personally because I don't need to.

How are you typing this then??? :wink:

Bluetooth is more for devices exchanging information. There are many RF mouse/keyboard out there Bluetooth won't be able to compete.

Bluetooth is a cable replacement technology. Replacing your wired keyboard and your wired mouse with wireless versions is exactly what it was designed to do...

Steve

[jonathanchoo]

All I see is Ed being honest. I don't agree with him, but he is correct. Unless BT gets its act together, it won't take off at least here in states (well Canada too eh?).

Oh I don't think Ed is being dishonest! Good lord no! Just blinkered.

I'm not sure I understand the second thing you say - you don't agree with him but he is correct? Do you mean you don't agree that BT is doomed but it needs to improve to take off in the US and Canada? If so - and I'm presuming to speak for the several billion people who live outside the US and Canada here ( :wink: ) - not really a problem... the US and Canada will catch up eventually (just as they are starting to with mobile phone tech ;)... as they will eventually with television/radio technology etc.).

Hell - we both (N America AND Europe) have to look at SE Asia to find out what's coming next as it is...! :)

In S.E. Asia WiFi is gaining on. I think both Bluetooth and WiFi still have relative small marketshare there. Of course GSM dominates there. The standard (atleast in my country - Malaysia) probably leans more towards Europe. I am based in London so its nice to have a phone (since my StarTAC back in 98) that works in both countries. I am rather annoyed that I had to loan a phone when I visit America because of the different networks.

[sprawlgeek]

The people in this forum championing Bluetooth are not normal users, and you all need to remember that.

nor are the critics....

yes it is handicapped, no it is not plug and play, but if there is sufficent demand for it, it will be.

[jonathanchoo]

As for mouse/keyboard - I don't use them personally because I don't need to.

How are you typing this then??? :wink:

Bluetooth is more for devices exchanging information. There are many RF mouse/keyboard out there Bluetooth won't be able to compete.

Bluetooth is a cable replacement technology. Replacing your wired keyboard and your wired mouse with wireless versions is exactly what it was designed to do...

Steve

Yes but my point is the mouse/keyboard market is already full of RF products. I might get a Bluetooth mouse/keyboard if it works on my PDA but it does not. Right now, the only wireless standard to exist on mobile phones is Bluetooth (apart from Infrared which is a hopeless) and that is why I support the standard. I just don't see WiFi on mobile phones until battery life improves ten fold.

[jonathanchoo]

The people in this forum championing Bluetooth are not normal users, and you all need to remember that.

nor are the critics....

yes it is handicapped, no it is not plug and play, but if there is sufficent demand for it, it will be.

My girlfriend is a normal user and she likes it when using her headset without wires...it is so easy my mum can use it (T39m with headset)

[Philip Colmer]

Thats the thing, I think that the Bluetooth should atleast have a 100metre range on the actual PDA itself, then you can utilize the range atleast
The thing is, though, how often have you wanted to use a cable 100 metres long from your PDA to something else?

10 metres isnt all that great, as I have figured out from personal use. Maybe if they had (class 1 i think is 100m) on all PDAs then BT may be more useful
Class 1 radios do, indeed, have the larger range ... but at the cost of power consumption.

Again, it is all about using the right hardware for the right purpose. The class of radio used in mobile phones, headsets, PDAs, etc is just right for replacing the short cables that typically go between these devices.

--Philip

[Philip Colmer]

There was a very good article I read a few weeks ago that showed that BT is doing very well in the industrial arena where you might want to run sensors in an area where cabling is problematic, e.g. temperature of a vat.
I found the article:

http://www.bluetooth.com/news/news.asp?A=2&PID=855

--Philip

[James Fee]

&lt;snip>
Simply stated. I don't think BT is dead or even has its foot in the grave. BUT, as Ed wrote...
I wanted bluetooth to work. It showed great promise and even though I use it several times a week with my Nokia 3650 and iPAQ 2215, it is a frustrating experience to get set up and to this day, when you mention it to an average person, they have no clue what it is. No wonder it isn't a success. No one even knows what it is.
Many of my friends are having these issues. I can get it working on mine and I'm happy about that. If BT supporters can't get this sorted out, BT will be dead.

[Steven Cedrone]

Three years ago, I wrote a report about Bluetooth (you think it's bad now, no one knew what the heck I was talking about back then)...

By now I could have sworn I'd be using my Bluetooth enabled PC with my Bluetooth enabled keyboard and mouse with my Bluetooth enabled printer, all in their little Piconet all communicating and all happy (with setup being a snap)...

No wires (except power)...

I still hope that happens, but it doesn't really look like it will right now...

My other gripe: If Bluetooth is a cable replacement technology, why can't I use a Bluetooth enabled Pocket PC to initiate and create a partnership with my desktop???

Steve

[Philip Colmer]

Yes but my point is the mouse/keyboard market is already full of RF products.
The biggest drawback I've found with RF versions is distance and interference. I use an RF mouse at home, and it works fine. However, at work, we've been using the Logitech RF keyboard & mouse in two meeting rooms and the maximum distance we can get the keyboard & mouse to operate from the receiver is barely long enough ... and to achieve that, we often have to put the receiver on a chair to distance it from anything that might be emitting interference.

I'm looking forward to being able to try the Logitech BT keyboard & mouse. The greater range compared with RF will be of big benefit to us.

--Philip

[Duncan]

Quite the passionate response this article is having on people. 8O

I judge a technolgy based on my success at using it. Here's my Bluetooth track record:

- Anycom Bluetooth CF Card - March 2002 - a complete nightmare (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/articles.php?action=expand,719). Nasty software (Anycom).

- Socket CF + T68i - November 2002 - took about 15 minutes, worked well. Great software (Socket).

- Socket CF + Nokia phone - December 2002 - took about 5 minutes, worked well. Great software (Socket).

- Iogear USB for desktop - March 2003 - spent 60 minutes at it, swore at manual, gave up.

- iPAQ to iPAQ Bluetooth - May 2003 - spent 3 minutes getting two devices to see each other, worked very well (HP software).

- iPAQ 2215 to Desktop w/Iogear Bluetooth USB dongle - spent about 60 minutes, got it mostly working. I'm able to sync and surf via the desktop, but it was a fight and my 2nd time as it. The software is clumsy, and not a solution I'd reccomend to most people.

- Socket CF Bluetooth card in my Fujitsu P5010D laptop. Spent hours trying to get it to work or to pair with anything. No dice. Horrific desktop software bundle - very hostile to the user. Tried again and again at Mobius to allow a Dell Axim to get network access through my laptop.

So as you can see, I've had success and failure with Bluetooth. I don't blame the technology, I blame the implementation. The same Socket card works great in a Pocket PC, but badly in my laptop. The difference? The software.

I don't think Bluetooth is dead, but I think it's gasping for breath - it needs a saviour or it WILL die. If Bluetooth chips only cost $5 to implement, why didn't my $400 printer come with one?

I was buying a new mouse, and rather than get the Microsoft Bluetooth mouse, I chose to get the RF version. Why? Because I knew it would just work. Duncan, I have a feeling you're the kind of person that actually reads the manual and follows everything to the letter - most people aren't like that. If a device takes more than about three steps to set up, it's too complicated for most people.

Read a manual? Life is too short...! 8) Seriously - I've never needed to. I still don't know what half the features on my Tecom dongle do - I just installed it and it worked. Connecting my iPAQs has always been a hand-holding exercise - everything made simple... Connecting the Loox - all I did was download desktop Plugfree and install it. Never bothered to find out HOW it worked - it just does! My T68 and T610 both offer simple to follow steps (two fewer than my VCR takes to program! :? ) in menus that lead nothing to the imagination.

One one level I do know a bit about BT - but on the 'user' level I just do what I'm told and it works.

But - no-one is arguing that there aren't BT based products that are poor. Yet until Windows XP appeared I could not (no matter how much I studied the manual) understand half of what I was supposed to do. Confusing interfaces, poorly written manuals etc. - and unlike BT WiFi was no good unless you knew what you were doing. It took a decade for MS to come up with zero config in XP and take the pain away (though still you find some WiFi products mess it up).

So - whatever flaws BT has - it IS the standard for short range cable replacements (a recent magazine article mentioned that Sony and Toshiba are both considering scrapping IR in future laptops, using WiFi and BT instead) now. It will survive, grow, improve, get rid of the kinks- and has the edge on WiFi in the speed with which it is advancing and developing within the consumer space (compare and contrast the iPAQ 3870 BT implementation and the iPAQ 2210 for example).

If things are so much improved in just two years - how much better will things be in just another year?

Some thoughts -

Every iPAQ range now has a BT option.
Every new Sony laptop will include BT.
It is Sony Ericsson's intention (and I believe Nokia have said something similar) that EVERY mobile (except basic entry level) will be BT enabled within a year.
In the UK BT handsfree sets for the car are predicted to outsell conventional handsfree sets 2 to 1 by Christmas 2004.
A BT enabled GameBoy is predicted within a year.
Most recent major new PDA announcements have been BT enabled models.
TI are saying that their new BT/WiFi dual chipset has seen a surge of interest across the board (with the 4xxx ranges the first to use it). They have also said that at least three manuafcturers (HP definitely one of them) have shown interest in their tri-Wireless set up.
Short range low-powered WiFi is still a pipe dream (and faces major legislative problems throughout the world) - no other short-range wireless possibility is showing the slightest sign of widespread interest (as I have said above - one 'competitor' - HomeRF - has pretty much been and gone).
The number of products, type of products and companies using BT continues to grow at an astonishing rate.
BT prices are about half what they were a year ago (in the UK at least) and continue to sink.

In short - for a product that is supposedly gasping for breath it is hiding its discomfort well! :) The reason? Simple - even if I were to accept all the horror stories as being the norm (rather than tha exception) - it doesn't change the fact that the technology works just fine. Only some implementatkions need work on them - and that IS happening (just as it has for other technologies - but at a faster rate).

I wonder if I might suggest - if Ed, and you Jason, lived in Europe - where you can see Bluetooth all over the place - you might see a glass half full rather than half empty? Similarly I might be more inclined to accept you have a point if I lived in the (apparent) Bluetooth desert that is N America? I think of a conversation I had a little while back with an American teacher who (in all seriousness!) saw my new T610 and said that she didn't think GSM would ever take off... (she hadn't been in the UK long - but this illustrates my point I think!).

[Philip Colmer]

My other gripe: If Bluetooth is a cable replacement technology, why can't I use a Bluetooth enabled Pocket PC to initiate and create a partnership with my desktop???
That is a very good question and I've been sitting here trying to type a good answer to it :-)

In truth, I can't. If, as you say, BT is a cable replacement technology, why doesn't it truly replace a serial cable? I do suspect though that there is something about the way ActiveSync detects the presence of a Pocket PC at the end of a COM port that just doesn't work with BT.

If anyone is having problems getting ActiveSync to work in practice, though, over BT, this article might help:

http://www.bluetoothnews.com/features/ActiveSync.htm

I was particularly interested by the opening paragraph, and its alignment with Jason's desire to get something up and running within five minutes.

I do wish that Microsoft would embrace BT more completely. Everything would be a lot simpler then, including creating a partnership :-)

--Philip

[JvanEkris]

The thing is, though, how often have you wanted to use a cable 100 metres long from your PDA to something else?
10 metres isnt all that great, as I have figured out from personal use. Maybe if they had (class 1 i think is 100m) on all PDAs then BT may be more usefulI Use this length daily, to synchronise my PDA to my server, and to mail/surf while i'm in the garden....
10 metres isnt all that great, as I have figured out from personal use. Maybe if they had (class 1 i think is 100m) on all PDAs then BT may be more useful
Class 1 radios do, indeed, have the larger range ... but at the cost of power consumption.No, in sharp contrast with WiFi, Bluetooths power consumption is reduced whenever possible. If you are closer, it reduces power consumption. That is on of the most fundamental differences in the design between Bluetooth and WiFi. If you are closer, WiFi goes faster, and Bluetooth turns down the power consumption.....

Jaap

[PPCRules]

(this thread is so long I'm sure noone reads to this point, but anyway...)
My limited experience was a mediocre one. With hours of setup, the connection worked but was flakey/unreliable. I am intrigued enough by that kind of thing to get to that point, but once that is accomplished, I want it to just work. It didn't work well enough for everyday use, so I haven't been back. (I also thought, so what? My cables don't bother me that much. W?BIC only goes so far.) My card has beta WM2003 drivers now so I plan to try it again.

But, of course it's the implementation. The standards group people aren't dopes; it must work. It looks like the phone people that put enough effort into the implementation have some content customers. But outside of phones and headsets, there seems to be a lot fewer sucess stories. Now, as I think Jason D. first pointed out, if support was integrated into Windows, so there was a universal level that always worked and was on every PC, things would be a lot different. Take USB for example. It didn't go anywhere for a long time. Once Windows had full support, the options are great. Imagine the acceptance level of USB flash drives if each manuafacturer had to have their own drivers. You couldn't just walk up to another machine and use it, without first loading drivers. But the way it is, it's pretty cool now that the majority of machines I'm around are 2000 or XP. That's the way I want BlueTooth (or it's successor) to work.

[Duncan]

Duncan, I sense a lot of arrogance coming from you in this regard - you seem to want to come out and say "Anyone who can't get Bluetooth working is an idiot", but you only hint at it. If you think anyone who says Bluetooth is still too difficult is an idiot, so be it. I'm an idiot.

I can accept that WiFi was difficult to use - I remember in 2001 WiFi was a bit mysterious and took some Mojo to get working. But I also remember seeing all the promises of Bluetooth at the same time - printers with Bluetooth built-in, mobile phones, headsets, etc. That was two years ago, and the promise of Bluetooth still waits to be fulfilled

Jason,

If I think someone is an idiot I will say so plainly and clearly. I don't happen to think any of the Bluetooth naysayers are idiots. Nor do I wish to hint at such a thing. Nor do I deny that some have had bad experiences with BT. What I do say, clearly and openly, is that these bad experiences are not the norm (IMO) and that they have blinkered some to the fact that BT, in the main, works just fine.

C'mon Jason - you should know by now that I respect both Ed and you a great deal - and to accuse me of being arrogant because I support my position strongly, and think you are wrong, is more than a little unfair. In fact - as I have said - I use Bluetooth as a normal user does and I speak as I find - and if I find an argument to be weak I am not going to hold my tongue for fear of appearing arrogant by saying so! In fact if I were to do so I would consider that to be arrogance... Disagree with my opinion as much as you want - but please don't read subtexts where there are none.


As for the promise of Bluetooth - all of those items you mention have been used by me (in several version over the years) and surround me now as I type. I have not had a cable connecting me to my printer for two years now. If the evidence required for Bluetooth's success is to see it in these products - then Bluetooth is clearly a success. Even my participation in this thread - which began on a bus and has continued through four different rooms in my house - has been enabled by seemless Bluetooth integration. Yet - I openly admit to technological ignorance when it comes to something as basic as a VCR or complex as a WiFi router.

[theon]

I can't believe the amount of discussion this is getting! Wow...

As someone who is comfortable with technology but does not understand the technical aspect of it too much. I have to say that I find BT a whole lot easier to use than WiFi.

I have been trying to connect with WiFi for over a month and have had no success. But from Day 1 with BT I have had no major issues.

All the problems that have occured have been mainly due to some implementation of BT that doesn't seem to work. And so far all from the same company...

My 2 cents is that BT is a whole lot easier to use for the mass market than any off the wireless alternatives out there. It does what it's supposed to do for the most part.

[MaximumPDA]

Ok, I want to believe im on the edge of things but just to play out this thread, will someone educate me????

Is there any technology out there today-
or with a confirmed release date-
or even highlighted in a press release or powerpoint-

that can replace the bluetooth technology?

Show me where.

Check this out:

World’s First Magnetic Communications Wireless Headset Announced at DEMOmobile (http://www.pdatoday.com/comments.php?id=P776_0_1_0_C)

Looks pretty cool. But I for one still believe in BT and think it will be around for awhile. I was even looking at a Sony miniDV camcorder the last month that was BT enabled. Very Cool.

--Bill

[plankan]

Bluetooth works well for me.

I have an old (2 years) Nokia 6310 GSM/GPRS phone with BT. This year I got my first iPAQ Pocketpc with BT and a Navman 4400 BT GPS. In my iPAQ I have Running Voice GSM and and a navigation program with a map downloading funktion.

I set up the phone and the gps to work with my iPaq at the same time without problem. With my iPaq I can navigate and make phone calls at the same time thanks to BT.

Thanks to BT and RVGSM I also dont need to buy a new phone in some years as my solution already works like a modern smartphone. I simply put my Nokia in my left shirtpocket, with a wired headset, and the gps in my right shirtpocket and I can navigate and make calls or surf on internet, send and recive e-mails, with or without pictures or download maps at my position, with my iPaq.

I simply use my old Nokia 6310 as a very intelligent BT-headset and my iPaq as a modern phone (with RVGSM) and I can sit down and wait a couple of years for newer and smarter pocketpcphones with 3G and upcoming servises.

BT saves me a lot of money!

/Leif Bength, Mora, Sweden

PS. WI-FI also works fine in my network, no problems with ActiveSync, and on internet.

[JustinGTP]

Thats the thing, BT is a lot cheaper for wireless conectivity for replacing cables in simple short range devices, which makes it very handy when you are in the car with, for example, the GPS.

Bluetooth altogether is another ballpark for, lets say, WiFi, and I hope to see it implemented. You know its coming in some luxury cars in the future? Very cool... 8)

-Justin.

[Varun Shoor]

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does.....
ISDN Modem? :confused totally: Most people in the known universe don't even know what ISDN is and most of the rest of us have no use for it.

Just like bluetooth. Great analogy. :lol:

ISDN = It still does nothing

(Applies to Bluetooth too? ;) )

[crass]

I won't elaborate on this because others have done that already.
Well eventually all things die but Bluetooth is certainly not dead yet.
I do not know why the 3870 seems your paradigm of choice regarding Bluetooth failure but after two years of heavy use and experience I have to say the following:

- Setup was a breeze even under WM2002 only complaint was with frequent requested soft resets by the OS to free memory.

- My discontinued 3870 with my discontinued T39m have allowed me to browse the net via BT and GPRS dozens of times per day for two years.

- BT under WM2003 on my 3870 is amazing. Setting up the connection with my trusty T39m was even easier. Almost a week now and 0 (yeah zero) soft resets.

In synopsis, I find BT an excellent technology to get rid of cables. And the trouble-free new OS clearly shows that it was WM2002 to blame and not BT technology for any minor problems.

[freitasm]

Making the two devices see each other and pair is rarely a problem in my experience, it's the next step that has been problematic... setting up the service/profile.

The "phone number" reqired to make the ipaq connect to the ATT T68 GPRS took a few minutes to find on the net. Then I had to find some code number in the phone menus and insert it into this "phone number". Then it just wouldn't work.

ummm... that isn't a BT problem you had but a GPRS one...!

Exactly!

"I connected to my phone using Bluetooth and it didn't work" - Have you entered the correct GPRS #? Do you have a data account?

"I followed your guide but can't ActiveSync" - Have you checked that ActiveSync is enabled for COM sync?

"I followed your guide and can't access the internet via Bluetooth on my computer" - Have you created a rule on your firewall to allow this traffic?

:devilboy:

You won't believe how many people say "It's Bluetooth fault here and there" when it's actually an individual configuration issue - and not even close to be in the same vicinity as a Bluetooth problem.

[freitasm]

How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset?

...and the point of connecting a mono headset to a Pocket PC is...?


...Voice instruction from NavMan GPS :D

Well - if you really want to - (how's your German?): http://pdassi.de/vshop/product.php?id=1438&prod_id=13048

EUR 3 for a simple registry change? You can get a Registry editor for free and change the key from 0 to 1 to enable Bluetooth headset...

[freitasm]

Check this out:

World’s First Magnetic Communications Wireless Headset Announced at DEMOmobile (http://www.pdatoday.com/comments.php?id=P776_0_1_0_C)

Looks pretty cool. But I for one still believe in BT and think it will be around for awhile. I was even looking at a Sony miniDV camcorder the last month that was BT enabled. Very Cool.

--Bill

And would you walk into a room full of computers, and rest your magnetic headset on a desk close to a hard drive or on top of a floppy disk?

[freitasm]

How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset?

And you blame the Bluetooth technology because some engineer or PHB manager at HP decided not to enable the driver for it (which is already there just disabled anyway)?

[JustinGTP]

Thats the thing, I think that the Bluetooth should atleast have a 100metre range on the actual PDA itself, then you can utilize the range atleast
The thing is, though, how often have you wanted to use a cable 100 metres long from your PDA to something else?

10 metres isnt all that great, as I have figured out from personal use. Maybe if they had (class 1 i think is 100m) on all PDAs then BT may be more useful
Class 1 radios do, indeed, have the larger range ... but at the cost of power consumption.

Again, it is all about using the right hardware for the right purpose. The class of radio used in mobile phones, headsets, PDAs, etc is just right for replacing the short cables that typically go between these devices.

--Philip

Talking about this, I think an iPAQ should have both feature, class 1 and 2 built in so that when you are out and about, you can have the power saving 10 metres on so you can view the internet with your phone, and then at home have the 100meters.

I was never talking about having a cable connected to my PDA for 100 metres, I dont know where that came from Phillip.

-Justin.

[Sheynk]

BT is a great idea but its only been implemented well in cell phone headsets. If its bandwidth will increase....theeeeen might we see a growing popularity of this product

[JustinGTP]

I think it's a bit like the first ISDN modems. They were a nightmare to set up, and everybody said: Joe Average never ever is capable of doing that. Now every moron in the known universe does.....
ISDN Modem? :confused totally: Most people in the known universe don't even know what ISDN is and most of the rest of us have no use for it.

Just like bluetooth. Great analogy. :lol:

ISDN = It still does nothing

(Applies to Bluetooth too? ;) )


Of course bluetooth does things! I can sync wirelessly, view the internet wirelessly. The point of the topic is whether it will be widely available and mainstream, in which Bluetooth points out it will be by next year.

You cannot tell us it does nothing! Its the set up and interface that proposes a problem, as many are discussing right now.

-Justin.

[wizardmaster2k]

good old usb, works fine for me :) i would like to see a nice wireless option, maybe bluetooth isnt it, but something will eventually come about that will be as good as wi-fi (wireless solution)

[Ed Hansberry]

Did I wander into a Team OS/2 meeting? :roll:

[JustinGTP]

Did I wander into a Team OS/2 meeting? :roll:

Well, after all, it was your dodgey decision to put this controversial topic up anyways. Oh well, its nice to see others decisions though!

-Justin.

[MaximumPDA]

Check this out:

World’s First Magnetic Communications Wireless Headset Announced at DEMOmobile (http://www.pdatoday.com/comments.php?id=P776_0_1_0_C)

Looks pretty cool. But I for one still believe in BT and think it will be around for awhile. I was even looking at a Sony miniDV camcorder the last month that was BT enabled. Very Cool.

--Bill

And would you walk into a room full of computers, and rest your magnetic headset on a desk close to a hard drive or on top of a floppy disk?


"low-frequency industrial, scientific and medical band at 13.5 MHz, creating a 3-dimensional ‘bubble’ that envelops the personal space of each user "

I dont think there is enough power to disrupt magnetic media any more than those magnetic Pizza Hut decals. The field intensity to very low.

--Bill

[Janak Parekh]

My other gripe: If Bluetooth is a cable replacement technology, why can't I use a Bluetooth enabled Pocket PC to initiate and create a partnership with my desktop???
Blame ActiveSync for this, quite frankly. Why can't you create a partnership over a WiFi connection either?

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

The people in this forum championing Bluetooth are not normal users, and you all need to remember that.
None of us are normal users -- most definitely. :lol:

And, I've seen very few "normal users" set up WiFi successfully (or, if somewhat set up, properly). The whole idea of having an AP, setting it up so that it's a closed network, setting up WEP, and then installing drivers and setting this up -- I've done it many times for customers and friends. Unless they're computer-savvy, they rarely get it. I'm still setting up wireless networks for people all the time.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

I wonder if I might suggest - if Ed, and you Jason, lived in Europe - where you can see Bluetooth all over the place - you might see a glass half full rather than half empty?
Indeed, none of "us" in N. America saw the value in SMS or MMS a few years ago. Now, many people are starting to use it. Picture messaging is really starting to take off -- at levels I've never seen before -- and now I can actually SMS with a majority of my friends if I want.

Quite frankly, BT is a "few years behind" WiFi in market penetration. Jason, when WiFi was "difficult" two years ago, and when BT products were just appearing, supposedly "WiFi-certified" products had already been out for at least 2-3 years before that -- we were using 802.11b in '99 where I am -- and it was impossible to figure out what parts to get, let alone get them to work together. I vividly remember spending days with Lucent reps trying to figure out what combination of access point, WiFi cards, converters, etc. to get.

In short: let's give BT a few more years before pronouncing it dead.

--janak

[szamot]

Check this out:

World’s First Magnetic Communications Wireless Headset Announced at DEMOmobile (http://www.pdatoday.com/comments.php?id=P776_0_1_0_C)

Looks pretty cool. But I for one still believe in BT and think it will be around for awhile. I was even looking at a Sony miniDV camcorder the last month that was BT enabled. Very Cool.

--Bill

This is another invention that should not have left the comfort of the drawing board. Now instead of a simple cell phone I have to carry two more devices and a spare battery for it. Perhaps it is just me but I always thought that technology is supposed to make life easier and more comfortable - this is not the case here, not the case with BT and lots of other “inventions”. I know that anything is possible with technology, but at what cost? Sure my laptop is going to run 40 hours on a single battery, but if that battery is the size of a MACK truck then no thanks. This reminds me of a very simple example of hands free sets. I see so many people using them, and the way I see it in action with 99% of the people is a phone in one hand, the other hand holding the microphone close to their mouths. WTF?! is that all about? Now we have turned a simple one hand cell phone operation into a two handed nightmare. How convenient is that?

I think we would all do well if we paused for a second took a deep breath and asked ourselves why we do the things we do? Is it to make things easier or just to be able to say Y?BIC, in which case we are becoming technology slaves and not its masters. The Raise of the Machines anyone – I just couldn’t resist. :twisted:

[szamot]

Check this out:

World’s First Magnetic Communications Wireless Headset Announced at DEMOmobile (http://www.pdatoday.com/comments.php?id=P776_0_1_0_C)

Looks pretty cool. But I for one still believe in BT and think it will be around for awhile. I was even looking at a Sony miniDV camcorder the last month that was BT enabled. Very Cool.

--Bill

And would you walk into a room full of computers, and rest your magnetic headset on a desk close to a hard drive or on top of a floppy disk?


Or better yet, put it in a pocket next to your wallet. Hmmmm sorry there Miss, my phone ate my Credit Cards..... What about your fillings in your teeth would they get sucked out?!

[Jason Dunn]

As someone who is comfortable with technology but does not understand the technical aspect of it too much. I have to say that I find BT a whole lot easier to use than WiFi.

I find that statement fascinating, because I'm the exact opposite. 8O I find WiFi fairly simple to understand, because it's wireless Ethernet - it's networking, and built upon networking principals. I understand the tools and methods of how to set it up, and I've never had a problem with it.

Bluetooth on the other hand, I find utterly mystifying. I haven't even THOUGHT about a COM port since...1995? Back in the modem days. I have a very difficult time wrapping my brain around how Bluetooth works in terms of underlying principals, and the fact that every Bluetooth software UI is different only makes matters worse. Everything is different - it's exceedingly difficult to do one thing on one BT device and do the same thing on another, because it will require different steps. Again, it's the implementation that kills me, not the technology itself. The iPAQ BT software is quite excellent, while others I've seen are horrible. :|

Well, it's good that someone understands Bluetooth, because I certainly don't. ;-)

[Janak Parekh]

I find that statement fascinating, because I'm the exact opposite. 8O I find WiFi fairly simple to understand, because it's wireless Ethernet - it's networking, and built upon networking principals. I understand the tools and methods of how to set it up, and I've never had a problem with it.
Hmm... this is interesting. Is it possible we find WiFi more intuitive because we were brought up on Ethernet and networking in general? I've been doing networking for many years -- wired first -- so WiFi is just an extension of that.

--janak

[MaximumPDA]

Check this out:

World’s First Magnetic Communications Wireless Headset Announced at DEMOmobile (http://www.pdatoday.com/comments.php?id=P776_0_1_0_C)

Looks pretty cool. But I for one still believe in BT and think it will be around for awhile. I was even looking at a Sony miniDV camcorder the last month that was BT enabled. Very Cool.

--Bill

And would you walk into a room full of computers, and rest your magnetic headset on a desk close to a hard drive or on top of a floppy disk?


Or better yet, put it in a pocket next to your wallet. Hmmmm sorry there Miss, my phone ate my Credit Cards..... What about your fillings in your teeth would they get sucked out?!

They claim that adding the feature to a cell phone is very cheap compared to BT, for now they offer the dongle meathod similar to what Jabra does for non BT cell phones.

Hmmm, credit cards in the wallet...I guess I am going to have to get one of these to review and test it with floppies, credit cards and memory cards.

One thing is for sure, there is far less RF radiation in a mag field than a BT or WiFi field.

Still I like my BT and all it offers. My next gadget will be a BT GPS unit.

[bucho]

I'm a very frequent user of Bluetooth... Anything from connecting my PDA or laptop to the T610 to dial-up, syncing T610 with Outlook, ActiveSync the PDA to the laptop, using the Jabra headset, sending/receiving SMS from the laptop or the PDA through my T610, transfering small files between the laptop and PDA... I also use bluetooth GPS, email pictures from my Sony camcorder via the T610.... I didn't even realize how much I use BT until I wrote the above.... and to think that I once hated BT and returned my first Socket card - and that was less then a year ago... and yeah, I live in the US.

I've also been using Wi-Fi since the early days... Purely for internet access for the PDA and laptop. I used to sync over Wi-Fi, but it's so much simpler and more reliable with BT. I'm one of those people that thinks that Wi-Fi and BT have different purposes, but I do realize they have some overlap too. But they are different enough and I don't think that one will ever replace the other.

Was I confused with BT initially- yes. Do I think most people will be confused about what it is and how to make it work for them - yes. Do I think BT will die because of this - no.

Any new technology is confusing at first. I think BT is very similar to PVRs. An average person still has no grasp of what PVR is, just like most average people have no idea what BT is how it can make their life better. Some people tried bad PVR products, just like some people have burned themselves with bad BT implementations. Some folks have Tivo and can't imagine life without it, and some people were lucky enough to make the best out of BT, can't live without it... The argument about making BT easy enough to set up a connection is not critical for it's success. You can't make anything easier then setting up a Tivo, but you turn around and still see no wide acceptance of it. I don't understand how people can watch live TV anymore, just like I can't understand how people still use cables for their headsets....

The fact is, both of these technologies are very much alive because they provide value to the customer and they will succeed because of that, no matter how slow their acceptance is to the mass market. Bluetooth is far from dead...

[DubWireless]

I use it several times a week with my Nokia 3650 and iPAQ 2215, it is a frustrating experience to get set up and to this day, when you mention it to an average person, they have no clue what it is. No wonder it isn't a success. No one even knows what it is.


it's frustrating setting up a lot of technology - but once done you don't have to worry about it

mention PocketPC to the "average" person and they aren't likely to have no clue what is is either ;)


Just yesterday I was talking with another Microsoft MVP about getting his MS bluetooth keyboard working with his iPAQ 5555. Forget about it.

how is that Bluetooth's fault? that issue sits directly at the door of Microsoft

/me waits for the next post on Pocket PC Thoughts that takes another shot at Bluetooth...

[ctmagnus]

Oh I don't think Ed is being dishonest! Good lord no! Just blinkered.

I'm not exactly up-to-date on the whole English-English translation thing, but that sounds to me like it means drunk. :drinking:

;)

(But judging from the context of the rest of the post, I'd guess the meaning of the phrase is not nearly so amusing and in fact means short-sighted or similar.)

[BigDaddy]

Seems we have two schools of thought regarding is BT alive or dead. The factor which seems to split things is old technology vs. new technology. With everything, the first version needs to have a few bugs ironed out, which seems to be the case. I have a Sony Ericsson t616 (started out with a t68 a few years ago I picked up in London), a HBH 30,35,60, and a prerelease 65, a iPAQ h5555, a tc1000, and three other HP notebooks which all have bluetooth cards or built in and LOVE IT!!!!. This is not designed as a replacement for WLAN, this is for when you are out in the true unwired world with no hotspots or as I use it when I am at the playground with my daughter.

I think the problem is that most magazine editors tend to put BT down because of their lack of experience with it and using LAB results vs. out in the car, mall, restaurant, or in my case playground test runs. Here is a letter I sent to the editor of Tech Edge magazine for his September 2003 downing of Bluetooth...

As a reminder to those of you who continue to base the ineffectiveness and primary shortcoming of Bluetooth on its communication range, please make sure to note to the reader it is only to be used feet and mostly inches away from other bluetooth devices. Hence the introduction of the term PAN (personal area network). If you remember any of your human sociology classes, a personal area is described as an invisible circle which extends three feet around you.

For example, my HP H5555 iPAQ and my Sony Ericsson T616 are never more than 24" apart. Well within the optimal range of an efficient bluetooth connection. So many people are being discouraged and mislead by those who have no idea of the possibilities of Bluetooth because they are not true mobile professionals themselves.

Bluetooth allows me to do which is most important to me. Which is being able to climb, run, and jump around all day with my daughter (soon to be daughters) while a headset stays securely but un-tethered to my ear, and a constant gprs connection via Bluetooth is kept between my T616 and iPAQ enabling email, web browsing, and YES two way video conferencing with wife and clients.

It is true that Wi-Fi is the best thing since sliced bread and the Internet itself; however we must see and admit that Bluetooth is the butter and jam for those slices.


~BD

[Ramin]

Did I wander into a Team OS/2 meeting? :roll:

Ed, why don't you run a poll, if only to satisfy yourself that "Bluetooth is dead". ;)

The fact that this thread has generated so much discussion, just shows how many of us don't believe that this technology is dead, since we use it and find that it works for us. Is that really difficult for you to accept?

[Janak Parekh]

Ed, why don't you run a poll, if only to satisfy yourself that "Bluetooth is dead". ;)
Actually, I intend to run one tomorrow if Ed doesn't. :razzing:

--janak

[mv]

The fact that this thread has generated so much discussion, just shows how many of us don't believe that this technology is dead, since we use it and find that it works for us. Is that really difficult for you to accept?

Agree. I use BT and i love it. BT won´t die until something better appears. People won´t use IR or cables instead of BT. Maybe it needs improvements, but it´s a pretty good thing as is it now.

[theon]

Hmm... this is interesting. Is it possible we find WiFi more intuitive because we were brought up on Ethernet and networking in general? I've been doing networking for many years -- wired first -- so WiFi is just an extension of that.
--janak

Actually, that is an interesting point that I should have mentioned. I have had no experience with networking before and I just find BT easier to use as there are no technical aspects to consider.

I have many friends that have just started taking technology onboard into their lives and so far, all the problems that they've come to me with have been with implementation of software and nothing to do with the BT itself.

WiFi may be better at the moment but taking into account the fact that to use it you actually have to know what all the acronyms WEP, SSID, IP, DNS, ICS, etc stand for for it to work... Well...

Maybe bluetooth is more suited to mass market consumer plebians like me and not technical gurus like the rest of you guys? :wink:

[Ramin]

Actually, I intend to run one tomorrow if Ed doesn't. :razzing:

Janak, there is in fact a poll about this matter on Smartphone Thoughts (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=32892&sid=451501ea998f959146f0d65b9210fada). :) And at the time of writing, there's around 80 votes - 68% believe that Bluetooth is NOT dead. 8)

[hollis_f]

My other gripe: If Bluetooth is a cable replacement technology, why can't I use a Bluetooth enabled Pocket PC to initiate and create a partnership with my desktop???
Because that's how Microsoft decided ActiveSync will work.

Again - you can't blame the technology when the fault lies with the people, supposedly, implementing that technology.

[hollis_f]

Ed, why don't you run a poll, if only to satisfy yourself that "Bluetooth is dead". ;)
Actually, I intend to run one tomorrow if Ed doesn't. :razzing:

--janak

It's be really interesting if the options were divided by continent -

1. Dead (US)
2. Alive (US)
3. Gasping (US)
4. Dead (Europe)
5. ...
6. ...
7. Dead (Rest of World)
8. ...
9. ...

[PResines]

I have been waiting for BT for very long. I love the idea of a cable replacements.

I haven't tried before because it hasn't got as cheap nor as available as it was promised ago (here in my OWN geographic realm). Right now I am about to get a T68i (accept sugestions) and maybe a BT card for my e755. I am also getting a T68i for my brother who I told to wait for an HP 4135.

What really freaks me out is to crash into the problems that I read about so often here on the Internet.

Just the other day I was reading a comparission betwen several diferent BT headsets and included a compatibility chart of what headset worked with what phones. It was a common enough problem that it was included in the review. (This was an european site by the way).

On the other hand, like some ppl posted here before, BT will not die soon simply because there is no replacement at hand. Maybe it is like a MS product and will be consumer friendly by v3.0 :?

[JvanEkris]

Talking about this, I think an iPAQ should have both feature, class 1 and 2 built in so that when you are out and about, you can have the power saving 10 metres on so you can view the internet with your phone, and then at home have the 100meters.

I was never talking about having a cable connected to my PDA for 100 metres, I dont know where that came from Phillip.

-Justin.That's one of the great things about bluetooth: It already does that automatically. A Class 1 device powers down when possible to the power of a Class 2 or even 3 device, to save energy.....

Jaap

[juni]

Bluetooth is alive and kicking, I've been using it first with my Loox and now with my new HP 2210. :)

[DrtyBlvd]

Well - if you really want to - (how's your German?): http://pdassi.de/vshop/product.php?id=1438&prod_id=13048

I do, regularly :lol:

[DrtyBlvd]

As someone who is comfortable with technology but does not understand the technical aspect of it too much. I have to say that I find BT a whole lot easier to use than WiFi.

I find that statement fascinating, because I'm the exact opposite. 8O I find WiFi fairly simple to understand, because it's wireless Ethernet - it's networking, and built upon networking principals. I understand the tools and methods of how to set it up, and I've never had a problem with it.

Well, it's good that someone understands Bluetooth, because I certainly don't. ;-)

Just to try and make a 'Page 15' :D

Pefect response; but, I sync and use BT with no problems - WiFi I spent weeks trying to get to work - Having next to no knowledge about networking standards it has been and still is a complete fluke that it works - I know little more about BT, but it seems easier to me than WiFi! Even with the 'Paq :D

"Implementation" - Software software software - $5 to have a chip in a printer, but how much for software that will work 'out of the box' with everything else?

One dongle moons ago just wouldn't work, the next one did, flawlessly etc etc etc.

BT will survive if it's life support system is good. If not, break out the wreath.

[DrtyBlvd]

Someone mentioned about BT being useful for automotive stuff?

Forgot to mention - My just ordered BM has a bluetooth car kit - should be very useful - especially as it's linked to the dash display and the steering wheel controls.

Can't wait for that to arrive :lol:

[LightMan]

I use bluetooth regularly.
I have 2 MSI dongles, one for my work laptop and another for my home desktop. Transferring files between both pcs works (so far) flawlessly and whenever I need to transfer files from my 2215 to either of them (or vice-versa) I also have had no problems so far and the transfer speed is steady and respectable.

Furthermore, I use bluetooth even more frequently with my 2215 to surf via my SE T68i.

Many of my friends that have Nokia phones BT enabled have complained about bluetooth, and after some of them switched to SE T68 or SE T610 they became BT lovers. Aparently, the BT implementation in some Nokia models is a bit crappy (to be polite)

If it's dead to some people, fine, but it sure looks alive to me. Is it perfect? Heck no, far from it. Is it handy? Definitely.
Anyway, I read about several people having stability & connectivity problems with it, so there is much space for improvement, maybe making initial setup easier and improving stability and standards among manufacturers.

Toshiba also said PPC is dead and they're releasing new PPCs as we speak...

[Bajan Cherry]

I use bluetooth everyday. I use active sync over bluetooth to connect my 2215 with the laptop (over belkin adapter). Works like charm. I am also able to connect to Nokia 3650 without any problems. The only time I have problems is when I use MS BT mouse. But that is not really a Bluetooth problem.
Far from dead, Long live Bluetooth.

[Snippetz]

I use my Ipaq 2210 and my Nokia 6310i everyday. It was very simple to setup, and it works great. No hangups, no problems it just works. So my bluetooth headset doesn't sound as nice as a wired one....so what. I rather have that then get tangled in wires while I'm driving and pull the headset out of my ear. No thank you. I like my bluetooth.... so there. :lol:
How do you like the interaction between the 2215 and your bluetooth headset? :wink:

How do you like the interaction between your wired phone headset and your 2215...? :wink:

You are mixing things up here I´m afraid. Bluetooth is a replacement for wired connections. It´s not a universal interface that could make any device device talk to any other - that is a totally different ballgame. Even if a device is Bluetooth enabled you still have all the other communication restrictions deal with, just like when you use non-Bluetooth connections. Is IR as a connection alternative dead as well just because any IR-enabled device can´t talk to EVERY other IR-enabled device? Come on...

I use my iPAQ 1940 and my T68i everyday for synchronizing information and to connect to the Internet (GPRS) for e-mail and web and it has been working wihout any problems for the last year. I also have a Jabra headset that I use together with my phone and that has been working just fine as well. Stable connections and easy to set up and use.

[Steven Cedrone]

My other gripe: If Bluetooth is a cable replacement technology, why can't I use a Bluetooth enabled Pocket PC to initiate and create a partnership with my desktop???
Because that's how Microsoft decided ActiveSync will work.

Again - you can't blame the technology when the fault lies with the people, supposedly, implementing that technology.

But this is what I don't understand: As far as ActiveSync knows, I am connected via a serial connection(say COM3). At this point the connection should behave exactly as if I had a wire connected to my computer. Yet, for some unexplained reason the connection is treated as being "different". If the idea was cable replacement, both my Ipaq and my computer should both "think" I am connecting both with a wire - the transport of the data between the two should be transparent to ActiveSync both on the device and the desktop, yet for some strange reason it isn't...

Why is this???

Steve

[JvanEkris]

But this is what I don't understand: As far as ActiveSync knows, I am connected via a serial connection(say COM3). At this point the connection should behave exactly as if I had a wire connected to my computer. Yet, for some unexplained reason the connection is treated as being "different". If the idea was cable replacement, both my Ipaq and my computer should both "think" I am connecting both with a wire - the transport of the data between the two should be transparent to ActiveSync both on the device and the desktop, yet for some strange reason it isn't...

Why is this???

SteveWell Steve,

This is because nobody really sticked to a nice layered ISO-OSI model, but build one huge application of bluetooth (some exceptions there, but not many). In other words, the drivers aren't well-designed for this. I have seen very good implmentations (the Bluez-Linux implementation is an extremely good example) that were perfect abstractions from the real physical port. So it does not matter if i use a real COM-port or a virtual com-port.

Microsoft tried to push the notion of a layered model in the forced use of their implementation of the lower stacks (basically doing what already happened on the Linux OS). Until this day, i haven't seen one driver implementatio to accomedate this......

Jaap

[Oleander]

15 pages, wow! Guess noone really cares about bt..... :)

My personal take on why some people percieve this bt-thingy to have gone awry is all Microsoft's fault.

IIRC just before the launch of XP Microsoft pulled the plug on bt support and we have suffered ever since. Now every company have their own personal idea of how to implement bt (in regard to windows), and more often than not, get i wrong.

Microsoft is a BIG player in this game, and they have the ability to make or break many new technologies if they want to. If they don't support it, those who try to push the product faces an uphill battle.

Some technologies are just bigger than MS - anyone here remember how windows 95 was pushed with MSN like there was no real need for the internet? I believe this is another such technology. MS is just dwarfed by the sheer number of phones sold worldwide that has bt abilities and wheter or not they want it, they'll get it!

I think that the people here who have declared bt dead are the ones close to the circles of MS, and therefore rightfully sees it that way. And please, before everyone flames me for MS-bashing. MS have all the right to not implement bt in their products. It is their products and if they think its not worth the huge investment, then thats the way it is.

My personal opinion is thou, that once MS implement bt correctly into its desktop OS(its just a matter of time, you know :wink: ) we wont have any problems.

[JvanEkris]

My personal opinion is thou, that once MS implement bt correctly into its desktop OS(its just a matter of time, you know :wink: ) we wont have any problems.They did, but the driver-developpers didn't accept it yet:( It is planned in SR2 of XP

Jaap

[Necrobard]

Following this topic through and through, it looks like (an obvious thing , eh? :wink: ) that most BT apologetics say something like "It works fine for me, it was simple enough to set up and even my girlfriend managed to make it without sweat on the brow". While the sheer quantity of this kind of answers mens just that, the 'tooth IS popular AND needful, it still lacks the globality of the source, as given by Ed. Humbly :splat:, I gonna sprink some Russian pepper into the bowl :wink: So, let's see

The ease of use (= the ease of setting it up)

There are (no arrogance in this statement, only plain and simple observations) two (2) large groups of technology users; let's name them
"simpletons" and "geeks" for simplicity.

The Simpletons (and - surprize! - they greatly outnumber the geekish kind!) never have the need for anything complex and complcated. They use their phones to SPEAK, and not for some fancy apps inside. They don't usually own PDAs, and those who do, use theirs the same way, always glad to make as little clicks and browsing as possible. They drive cars with automatic gearboxes and wont to kick all the air from tech support services which fail to make their life just that - simple. That does not mean they are stupid - far from that. Lots of them are just the people who prefer doing things extremely fast and effective - and tinkering with setting all this up naturally frustrates them.

The Geeks are just like them, they only difference is, they are just a bit more educated in tech stuff and have more interest (and spare time, too ;) ) to squeeze the desired effect out of their gizmos.

The Question of simplicity:

is BT simple enough? The answer is: NO. But is seems to me that a person HAS to be somewhat geekish to even LOOK into such stuff like wireless headset or mobile internet (people who have it as a part of their everyday work ususally have Admins and Techs to set their devices :twak: )

is WiFi simpler that BT? Not that much. Less clicks and shaman drums, yes, but, still, that's geeky stuff.

As it was said already by somebody, there's always a matter of time in perfecting usability, and WiFi just had more time.

The fields of application

With WiFi and BT, they are just that - different. The WiFi could, possibly do the same as 'tooth and vice versa. But for now we have both of them lacking something - range, speed and network integration for BT and power consumption and security for WiFi. There's a possibility that both of the evolve into something with named gaps filled - but that's future. For now, we have WiFi for local wireless and BT for on-the-go connectivity (plus perspectives for ubiquitous wireless peripherals, that is 8) )

Also, there are other wireless technologies in the development, striving to become a BT replacement for PANetworking. But the 'tooth is developing, too. And, seems to me, there is similarity to the recent USB 2.0 vs FireWire war. Yes, the Firewire was earlier, faster and peer-to-peer. But USB 2.0 was BACKWARD COMPATIBLE - and that means much, very much for the customer. The all-new technology will, possibly, become somewhat better than newer version of 'tooth - but, if it won't be able to become OBVIOUSLY and VASTLY superior in both performance an usability (and marketing, too :soapbox: ), people will stay with BT -
"good old 'tooth".

The regional factor

The popularity of BT HAS to be reviwed with a sideglance to the GSM cellular networks' widespread. The 'States is, until recent, a CDMA country with a good amount of public WiFi access points. The situation is changing, but, still, this is the reason for OEMs to present WiFi-oriented "USA versions" and 'toothy "Euro versions" (with good examples of Toshiba e740/750 and recent Dell swapping their Axim's CF slot to WiFi in X3).

On the BT side, still, is Eurasia with significant, but not overturning exception of CDMA Japan and Korea. Malaysia, China and, especially, Taiwan - "world's electronic workshop" are all GSM, and even Korean Samsung and LG have large investments in GSM phones and are planning to implement BT in their newer models.

Here, In Russia, wireless is much more geekish thing than it is in US or EU, but, it seems, WiFi has a long way to cut itself a significant niche. Meanwhile, in the Russian PDA community a "BT GSM phone + BT PDA" solution becomes even more popular than the cheapest (and uncomfortable) "IrDA phone + PDA".
More the grief, some of PDA shipments (and that's about legal ones!) come from US. As a result, we have, for example, wonderful (for my liking) Toshiba e750 units for sale - with nearly useless "WiFi only" solution. And the BT version is available only by ordering one in England, which way is a prolonged and expencive one...

Ahem...I digress.
Need to make some issues from all that word mess.

For me, it seems, the BT is far from being dead. It may be sometimes unrefined and it's software's clumsy, but that all the matter of time and development - especially since it've served us well for some time.

In the neares future it will doubtlessly evolve. It is possible that well-advertised and invested trademark of "Bluetooth" and (maybe incomplete) backward compatibility will be all that'll remain from current technology. But, to me, WiFi still needs the greater scale of evolution to replace BT in it's niche, that the BT needs to give it's customers a smoother and (YES, I WANT IT!) simpler utilization.

Oof...Hope I have not bored all of you to death :oops:

2 Jason: BTW, the Anycom CF card like the one you observed, gave me bit of headache while trying to connect a desktop and a notebook (maneged to send/receive files between them, but failed to obtain a LAN connection via the desktop). But, even with it's bundled old'n'crappy software, if worked pieceacake with my DEll X5 and my t68i cellphone after a couple of minutes.
It seems to me, that the problem lies within different adapters using different stacks (Widcomm for my USB Mitsumi BT and Ericsson for both Anycom CF and T68i)- and the programmers lazy ;) or lacking enough time to check the compatibility issue. As far as I know, FS Pocket Loox is a good example; they used a Rappore BT stack which didn't work well with ubiquitous WidComm-stack USB 'teeth. But they fixed the issue, and with the recent flash upgrade it syncs fine.

[Ed Hansberry]

Oh I don't think Ed is being dishonest! Good lord no! Just blinkered.

I'm not exactly up-to-date on the whole English-English translation thing, but that sounds to me like it means drunk. :drinking: [/size]
No, it means I am close minded. :roll:

[Ed Hansberry]

Ed, why don't you run a poll, if only to satisfy yourself that "Bluetooth is dead". ;)
Actually, I intend to run one tomorrow if Ed doesn't. :razzing:

--janak
Go ahead. To me, that poll would be meaningless. It would be like asking the fans at ClogThoughts.com (http://www.woody2shoes.com/newcoolimage.html) if wooden shoes were dead or not. :lol:

[Duncan]

Oh I don't think Ed is being dishonest! Good lord no! Just blinkered.

I'm not exactly up-to-date on the whole English-English translation thing, but that sounds to me like it means drunk. :drinking: [/size]
No, it means I am close minded. :roll:

Actually I was using the term in its most literal sense ('blinkers' are the pads used to shield carriage and dray horses eyes from what is happening either side of them - limiting their field of view - 'blinkered' in general use, when applied to a person, is simply the deliberate choice to limit ones field of view in an issue). I am simply saying that, in this one issue (and making no generalisations), Ed is choosing to ignore evidence that contradicts his belief that Bluetooth is a failure and focus only on the limited view of products that are known to have issues/will help to support his thesis - including, of course, the MS keyboard - which I think is actually quite a disingenuous example...

[surur]

Just another bluetooth user chipping in to support the cause.

Currently I own a FSC Loox (bluetooth), Tecom dongle, T68i, T610, Tom-Tom wire-free GPS receiver and Blue-Parrot hands-free car kit.

Bluetooth will only get bigger, especially as Bluetooth headsets catch on, and also as soon as wired headsets become illegal in in-car use at the end of this year. (thats in the UK btw) At some point, (say 2 years from now) we will see an explosion in wireless mice and keyboards, as it becomes cheaper to just implement a stable and ubiquitous chip-set, and we can say good bey to that receiver hanging round all over the place. Also we will be able to walk up to any keyboard and use it with your PDA.

As many people have said, in Europe all high end phones have bluetooth, and Nokia has released a number of peripherals to go with them (e.g picture frames etc)

I'm sure our Ed will have to eat his words in only 1 year, and will be using bluetooth 10 times per day in 2 years. :)

As to a front page poll, Im sure the number of bluetooth advocates in this thread, which must be in the top 5 longest on PPCThoughts, have already made this point.

Surur

[willowpc]

Having used BT since it's early days and known all the frustrations with getting it to work correctly, not surprised this debate still gets all these responses. I'm committed to BT where it makes my life better, and wouldn't waste my time with it where it doesn't. Today I use use it with my ipaq 5550 for wireless internet access via a BT phone wherever I don't have wifi access. There isn't any other way with the 5550 to do this without using a bulky sleeve, or having to use a separate wireless card. I also use BT with the 5550 and IBM notebook/bt ultraport adapter to activesync when a faster wifi connection isn't available. Again, there isn't a more convenient way to do this. Finally, I've invested in a Nextlink digital bluespoon headset for my BT phone. People don't know what they're missing unless they've tried this combination (very small and convenient with great noise cancelling sound). I don't bother with BT for printing as wifi works fine at home or at work. There is no black and white answer to this debate but seems to me that BT will continue to have its good uses for a long time to come.

[PPCRules]

Nothing really new in the last 7-8 pages since I last commented.

Discussing "Bluetooth"'s death is not too meaningful. It's not "bluetooth" we see or interact with, it's the implementation. In certain cell phones, the implementation apparently works well. Beyond that, if the implementation in other devices doesn't improve, there's a limit to the penetration that will ever be achived in the other potential uses. That does not equate to 'death' except in a marketer's eyes.

Personally, I'm content with bluetooth remaining a cellphone/headset linking technology. I'd like to see "wireless USB" (I don't know the official name right off) become the desktop/laptop computer cable replacement technology. The USB infrastructure is already there; it should be a small step to go wireless. This, conversely, would not be an appropriate technology for cellphone/headset linking.

[angeleyes]

Bluetooth finished? Not a chance of it in my humble opinion :roll:

I'm typing this using my bluetooth keyboard and bluetooth mouse from my desktop. My BMW is bluetooth prepared and I use my Nokia 8910 with it with no problem. I use a compact flash bluetooth CF card with my HP 568 to connect with my Nokia 8910 and I am just about to get the TomTom Navigator bluetooth GPS reciever to use with satelite navigation software that run's off my Pocket PC. I've connected my phone to my desktop as well - just to see if I could :wink:

And everyone of those connections was a synch!

Bluetooth is King! Long live the King! 8)

[putthegundownkinkade]

(public health warning: this is a long post, if you are of an easily bored disposition please consult your forum moderator before consuming)

I used to work in an embassy in South America and we had IT people who made sure everything worked for us and if it broke they gave us a new one 'til they'd fixed our old one. At which point they probably gave the old one to someone else whose machine had broken(i was never really sure if i got my one back). The only thing i ever needed to know about computers was that we had flat panel monitors and no-one else did and that made us cooler than them, also, conveniently it became a lot easier to read what you had written on the screen.

I moved back to the UK several months ago to set up my own business and amongst all the other things that i had to do from scratch, i had to set up my own computers, 'that'll be easy' i thought ' as long as they've all got flat panel monitors i'll be able to do all the stuff that i could do before.

So i set about wirelessly networking three desktops and a laptop whilst at the same time setting up a brand spanking new ipaq so that i could feel like i was really in the twenty-first century. Now i don't think it's really appropriate to go into the story right now as this is a forum and not a therapy site but i can assure every single one of you that for a novice(even one who enjoyed star trek tng as a teenager) there is absolutely nothing straightforward or accessible or even remotely understandable to setting up a wireless network, i'm sure that as a progression from wired it is probably far more transparent but for joe user it is an arcane and mystifying world, a basic phrase like TCP/IP is the beginning of a protracted search through the internet and windows help. If anyone out there believes that WI-FI is accessible then that is because they are such experts that they no longer see the view from the cheap seats. Now that my wireless network is up and running it is simple to use and very effective, i have a really high transfer speed (11g) and no horrible wires and i'm glad that i took the time and effort.

Right, the next bit was setting up the IPAQ, this was possibly more of a nightmare than the network, it wouldn't work with anything, active sync never recognised, not even vaguely as an acquaintance 'didn't we meet at the Hansberry do last summer?'(sorry Ed). I could never get onto my wi-fi network and most horrifyingly of all i had to do about three hard resets a week for the first month (it was at this time that i discovered Forums and my hairline was saved) I'm very happy with my ipaq now, it adds greatly to my productivity and is a wholly stable tool that i feel comfortable relying on, it did not i any sense though 'work out of the box'.

So now we're two months down the line and i'm starting to think about my next challenge, i have a bluetooth phone (t68i then replaced with a t610) and i've bought a bt headset to stop myself getting brain cancer and i start to hear rumours that i can make my computer have bluetooth, just whispers in the forums really, i look into it and they're seventy quid from the shop so i forget about it, then about a week or two later i realise that the ' dongles' that everyone is talking about are the same thing and they're everywhere, so i buy one for twenty quid off the internet and install the drivers on to my laptop, which took about fifteen minutes and had no hiccups.

Well, i think that it could be a simpler user interface because i've never really warmed to it and it would be nice if it automatically connected to everything nearby but i'm basically content to get rid of some wires. Then i realise that i can use it to synchronise my phone contacts with outlook and send pictures over from my phone, and back again, i don't really care about the last one's but synchronising my contacts is heaven, doing it over IR worked about once a week and you had to line everything up, which was boring and so i didn't do it very often, BT once a day works every time and it's just a click(i leave BT on my phone on as it hardly affects the battery life).

Fo me the final part of the equation is BT giving me internet on the move, an hour of wi-fi, stuck in one place in england costs 6 quid that's my whole months data spending on GPRS using my phone and my ipaq and i can do it anywhere, on the train, the bus in any restaurant or cafe(not just expensive wi-fi ones) best of all my phone stays in my briefcase, i don't have to line up any ir port or carry any cables, i don't know about anyone else but this is what i thought the future was going to be like. When 3g is more available the speeds that i'll be able to access the internet on while i'm out of the office will be literally quite remarkable.

Now, the thing is, none of what i have described was simple, the BT seemed simpler because it came after all the other stuff and so it seemed easier, i'd still never reccomend it to anyone who wasn't game for a laugh, the only piece of kit that i've mentioned that works perfectly and always does is my mobile phone and that is because it is made for consumers, which means it has to work for everyone the whole time, everything else i've mentioned is made for computer users who accept/expect that they'll probably have to use the wily knowledge that they've built up over the years to get the best out of whatever it is they're trying to use. Use the word 'configure' on the high street and the consumer is out of the door and spending their money on pre-configured goods like shoes and food etc because they're not scary.

For me, i'm pretty happy now, i've got my wi-fi doing one thing and my bluetooth doing another and i'm starting to get that warm 'converged' feeling.

Will

[DrtyBlvd]

and i'm starting to get that warm 'converged' feeling.

Will

:rofl: Ain't nothing like a bit of 'warm converging' every now and then :!:

[dpacquette]

Long gone are the days standing in the airport balancing a cup of coffee, PDA AND mobile phone whilst having a phone conversation and checking my email. I run my iPAQ 3970 Nokia 6310i and headset all at the same time via Bluetooth - technology is great.
Oh, and when driving, my bluetooth enabled GPS is a dream.

[Jason Dunn]

...I just find BT easier to use as there are no technical aspects to consider...

No technical aspects to consider? 8O Then what's all this COM port stuff, binding services to ports, profiles, pairing, etc. I understand the whole pairing process, but in the case of my Socket card on my laptop, their software makes the COM port/profiles part very difficult to understand. I find it way more technical than WiFi, although I suppose WiFi has more "parts" to learn about if you know nothing about networking. But, really, Bluetooth DOES have some technical bits. It's not like USB where you just plug it in. Imagine if you had to configure COM ports for USB and select the service that the device was going to use - and different COM ports had different services attached to them... 8O That's Bluetooth! :?

[jaja_75]

It's not like USB where you just plug it in.

Which USB ? :lol:

USB client, USB host, USB 1.0, USB 2.0 : plug OK but play ? (another story) 8)

A lot of PPC with USB host interface without drivers :twisted:

[theon]

Many of my friends that have Nokia phones BT enabled have complained about bluetooth, and after some of them switched to SE T68 or SE T610 they became BT lovers. Aparently, the BT implementation in some Nokia models is a bit crappy (to be polite)

Well... Someone finally mentioned the company that nearly ended my affair with bluetooth before it began. Took me nearly 2 months, 3 nokia phones and a whole lot of aggravation b4 I realised it wasn't my computer, PDA OR dongle... It was Nokia.

To date, I have persuaded over 20 people to stop using Nokia based on the strength of that alone. Not much to them but my little way of telling them to get their act together.

[Duncan]

But, really, Bluetooth DOES have some technical bits. It's not like USB where you just plug it in. Imagine if you had to configure COM ports for USB and select the service that the device was going to use - and different COM ports had different services attached to them...

How did Joe Consumer manage before USB then? It was all COM ports then! I do know this - when I installed each of my dongles the COM ports all got set up for me. In ActiveSync I needed to select the Bluetooth COM port (hardly a challenge - after all you also have to select Ethernet or USB if you want to use those) - but that was all. My printer adaptor and mobile phones all found the right COM ports by themselves without any need for user input. My iPAQ and Loox both chose the COM port by themselves for direct connection to my laptop/Internet connection.

With profiles - the average user doesn't need to know about them or what they are called - as long as they are there.

As for complaining about pairing and bonding - even though it is short range and ad hoc BT is still wireless comms and all wireless comms will need some form of pairing and bonding. To call this technical is surely to insult people's intelligence. It is made ridiculously easy and obvious by most BT devices - and most devices software explains why pairing/bonding needs to happen. It is done once then fogotten about.

Yet - everyday members of the public do the following more complex tasks all the time with precious little help - set up GPRS, hands-free dialling, SMS messaging, WAP browser setups...

I will predict right now that, if Bluetooth ever does get replaced - its replacement will require as much setting up and 'technical knowledge' as Bluetooth. I also predict that the current set-up requirements for Bluetooth are the baseline - i.e. - there will never be a simpler setup for wireless tech than the WIDCOMM/Ericsson/iPAQ exemplars...

One thing that bothers me is the way analogies are stretched beyond breaking point when it comes to Bluetooth. WiFi is more complex than wired ethernet - FACT. Bluetooth is more complex than USB cables - FACT. Simply because WiFi and Bluetooth replace wired equivalents does not mean they should exactly replicate those equivalents. The very nature of wireless connection (with greater flexibility, freedom and security issues) militates against this!

[jaja_75]

It's not like USB where you just plug it in.

Which USB ? :lol:

USB client, USB host, USB 1.0, USB 2.0 : plug OK but play ? (another story) 8)

A lot of PPC with USB host interface without drivers :twisted:

And, I don't say USB is dead ! :lol:

I need USB host enabled PPC (with drivers indeed) ! :mrgreen:

[theon]

...I just find BT easier to use as there are no technical aspects to consider...

No technical aspects to consider? 8O Then what's all this COM port stuff, binding services to ports, profiles, pairing, etc. I understand the whole pairing process, but in the case of my Socket card on my laptop, their software makes the COM port/profiles part very difficult to understand. I find it way more technical than WiFi, although I suppose WiFi has more "parts" to learn about if you know nothing about networking. But, really, Bluetooth DOES have some technical bits. It's not like USB where you just plug it in. Imagine if you had to configure COM ports for USB and select the service that the device was going to use - and different COM ports had different services attached to them... 8O That's Bluetooth! :?

True, there are several technical aspects. But to someone who has had no experience in networking at all, I found BT so much easier to understand/troubleshoot than WiFi.

Even with the issues of Com ports. I just ticked the box and changed the Com port till it worked. With WiFi I have to find out if there's WEP, set-up a SSID, still haven't figured out what's ad-hoc mode. Apparently, there's some ICS I have to do to be able to access the internet, etc.

BTW, I still can't use WiFi... :oops:

[Ed Hansberry]

But, really, Bluetooth DOES have some technical bits. It's not like USB where you just plug it in. Imagine if you had to configure COM ports for USB and select the service that the device was going to use - and different COM ports had different services attached to them...

How did Joe Consumer manage before USB then? It was all COM ports then!
That's the point - they didn't. They either purchased PCs totally preconfgured with their hardware - namely the modem and mouse drivers - or they had a techie come over and do it for them. Printers were were never a problem since they use a parallel port. It was a very rare time when Joe Consumer could go and buy a modem and get it working without some angst. COM ports, DMA, IRQ, blech. :pukeface:

Once Win95 came out and offered some measure of plug and play, this was mitigated. OSs since then have gotten better and better about it.

People keep comparing WiFi to Bluetooth from an ease of use standpoint but forget WiFi isn't (or wasn't) for the average consumer until very recently. Even then, they are going to be advanced because most households with computers still only have one PC. Bluetooth on the other hand has been touted as consumer friendly from day one and has fallen on its face. There is a huge difference between the WiFi timeline and BT timeline and the comparison just isn't valid. No more than comparing the installation of a drill press in your garage to configuring a cordless screwdriver.

[Scott R]

The point of this story seems misguided. Shouldn't the theme be "What's wrong with manufacturers for not giving us decent Bluetooth drivers?" Were you pronouncing the Pocket PC dead when people were having way too much difficulty getting ActiveSync and alarms to work? The fact that you have had some success stories with Bluetooth demonstrates that the issue is with the hardware, not the software.

Scott

[drac]

Bluetooth is highly imperfect as a simplified end-user product.

What does that have to do with death again? I don't get it, bro- just don't see the logic. Selling well, included in more and more devices, getting better all the time.

:?: Time to buy a coffin? :?:



http://www.brighthand.com/article/Bluetooth_Is_Alive_and_Well

[Duncan]

Bluetooth on the other hand has been touted as consumer friendly from day one and has fallen on its face.

Which was a mistake. Bluetooth 1.0 and 1.0b were (except for Ericsson's implementation - but then they had the advantage of knowing what version 1.1 would look like) appalling and early software was written by the same kind of people who write WiFi manuals (or indeed the same kind of people who wrote ActiveStink).

In effect early Bluetooth can be compared to the Palm-size PC - great idea, nice technology, ruddy awful implementation. Of course the Palm-size PC was rightly condemned as a failure and died... oh wait... no, it didn't! 8)

Simple fact is - there is no reason why consumers should need to know that BT uses virtual COM ports (any more than early USB adopters needed to know about the virtual COM ports some early devices 'used' - how quickly we forget...!). The only times I have EVER needed to delve into the COM port thing with BT were with a) poorly designed BT products and b) Microsoft products - namely ActiveSync.

Take AS as an example - there is no justification for AS to still require you to manually select the COM port. It is stonkingly bad design and entirely the fault of MS. AS should be able to select the correct COM port all by itself (the capability is written into the BT specs for heavens sake!).

BT IS designed for plug and play - it is only laziness on the part of some programmers that prevents it from doing this - in SOME cases.

It bears remembering that Bluetooth - and the laziness of some programmers who design Bluetooth products - are two entirely different things - and, if we want to be brutally frank, Microsoft hold the responsibility for allowing that to be a problem.[/quote]

[Duncan]

Bluetooth is highly imperfect as a simplified end-user product.

What does that have to do with death again? I don't get it, bro- just don't see the logic. Selling well, included in more and more devices, getting better all the time.

:?: Time to buy a coffin? :?:



http://www.brighthand.com/article/Bluetooth_Is_Alive_and_Well

Ed vs. Ed - fight, fight...! :D

[Ed Hansberry]

The point of this story seems misguided. Shouldn't the theme be "What's wrong with manufacturers for not giving us decent Bluetooth drivers?" Were you pronouncing the Pocket PC dead when people were having way too much difficulty getting ActiveSync and alarms to work? The fact that you have had some success stories with Bluetooth demonstrates that the issue is with the hardware, not the software.
Agreed - but with bluetooth, they are inextricably linked. If you get a printer and the head is messed up, to you the whole printer is junk. If you get a printer and it buzzes when the color red is used because of a misaligned wheel, then there is a nagging glitch. Bluetooth is like the printer with the defective print head. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, you printer doesn't work. ActiveSync is the same way for users that just can't sync and MS is working hard to correct it. The alarm problem - well, that is a nagging issue that is getting Microsoft's notice I think, but it still doesn't ruin the whole Pocket PC.

[drac]

I still don't see how "has glitches" translates to "is dead"...

[Scott R]

Agreed - but with bluetooth, they are inextricably linked. If you get a printer and the head is messed up, to you the whole printer is junk. If you get a printer and it buzzes when the color red is used because of a misaligned wheel, then there is a nagging glitch. Bluetooth is like the printer with the defective print head. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, you printer doesn't work.Ed, I would agree with this. In one sense, this is where the slow adoption by the big US cell carriers could turn out to be advantageous. Right now, most US consumers don't even know what Bluetooth is. Most haven't tried it and failed, because most haven't tried it at all. Those who have tried it and failed have largely been geeks who are willing to keep trying. True, average consumers won't keep trying. But they haven't had a need to, because they haven't had Bluetooth devices available to them. Those who have, have largely bought Bluetooth cell phones for the purpose of pairing them with Bluetooth headsets which, AFAIK, has been relatively painless.

Now that Bluetooth is becoming more common in PDAs and Bluetooth cellphones have been out for a while for the US GSM networks, the software is getting better for pairing a BT phone with a PDA or laptop. The average consumer trying Bluetooth today (or a few months from now) shouldn't have the same negative experiences you've had in the past and thus, shouldn't equate Bluetooth with being problematic.

Scott

[alien rider]

(Possible Long Post Alert)

Hi,

For the record I am a Bluetooth supporter, I had a 3850 first and struggled immensly with a TDK Bluetooth Sleeve for it and a Nokia 6310i. Why bother with it? Because previously the only real way I could get internet on the move was to do get a cable to hook it up between PDA and Phone or use IR (which on a bus sucked and you looked like an idiot, a fancy idiot but an idiot nonetheless :D ).

To me getting rid of cables was key, but yeah I consider myself a techie and so the hassle was bearable plus I learnt some things about BT along the way and why it was flaky, which has been pointed out, is more to do with individual implementation than the actual idea behind BT.

I agree in those days BT was great in principle but poor in practice (at least for me). I nearly gave up on the whole thing because of the poor reliabilty of TDK Sleeve (I went through two of the things in a year :evil: ).

Partly due the to TDK BT Sleeve debacle and kinda still wanting to believe in the BT Dream and I bought a shiny new PDA and plumped for a hp2210.

Things for me are vastly transformed. The WM2003 from what I can see uses a WIDCOMM BT implementation and this rocks, all problems with connecting seem to have vanished. My connection to the 6310i works every time I can do GPRS whilst on the move on the train, on the bus (I don't look like a fancy idiot anymore). And it conects flawlessly with my Socket BT GPS.

Suddenly to me what I wanted to believe in is here = No cables, not 100m from the PC Stuff (that's Wi-Fi Stuff), but personal items that I would normally carry around with me that talk to each other without, previously required, cables. I don't want to transfer huge files between my PPC and my laptop/PC because that's what Wi-Fi is for. I do want to sync outlook data, pickup emails and browse the net, even find out my latitude and longitude of where I am and I want to do it without cables and that is, at least for me, possible with the latest and greatest implematations of BT.

It has been a difficult road but we early adopters have been there many times before. As I believe someone pointed out earlier in this forum, Wi-Fi had a longer incubation period. So while I agree for some users there are issues to be sorted out and glitches to be addressed, it doesn't add up to the death of BT ...yet; not with amount of products I see coming out in the UK, Europe and Asia with BT.

My 2p !

Kind regards,

B

[jaja_75]

By the way, a a BT patch for WM2003 (http://www.pocket.at/pocketpc2/bluetoothheadset.htm). :D

The Bluetooth Headset Patch activates the Headset function in the Bluetooth manager and allows a Pocket PC (h1940, h2210, h5450) to link to a Bluetooth Headset.

[JustinGTP]

I have missed a lot in this conversation!

By the way, a a BT patch for WM2003 (http://www.pocket.at/pocketpc2/bluetoothheadset.htm). :D

The Bluetooth Headset Patch activates the Headset function in the Bluetooth manager and allows a Pocket PC (h1940, h2210, h5450) to link to a Bluetooth Headset.

Its in German! I dont think its going to be very popular. We can get the headset to show up through a registry hack! :D

-Justin.

[jaja_75]

With Systran (http://www.systranbox.com/systran/box) German to English translation :

"With this patch, which runs under Windows Mobile 2003, a Bluetooth Headset paired to a Bluetooth enabled Pocket PC allows to listen to music, to take vocal notes, to make VoIP phone calls (if appropriate software installed), ...."

[JvanEkris]

Agreed - but with bluetooth, they are inextricably linked. If you get a printer and the head is messed up, to you the whole printer is junk. If you get a printer and it buzzes when the color red is used because of a misaligned wheel, then there is a nagging glitch. Bluetooth is like the printer with the defective print head. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, you printer doesn't work. ActiveSync is the same way for users that just can't sync and MS is working hard to correct it. I have to disagree here with you Ed,

Basically, there are only three large manufacturers of software and two large manufacturers of hardware. So you basically just grab a driver that works for your manufacturer, and use it........

Jaap

[JvanEkris]

Now that Bluetooth is becoming more common in PDAs and Bluetooth cellphones have been out for a while for the US GSM networks, the software is getting better for pairing a BT phone with a PDA or laptop. The average consumer trying Bluetooth today (or a few months from now) shouldn't have the same negative experiences you've had in the past and thus, shouldn't equate Bluetooth with being problematic.

ScottUnless you bought a Nokia, Bluetooth always worked perfect from a phone. This is because most PDA-manufacturers tested their phones with ericssons as a reference-implementation :)

Jaap

[gmontielh]

Except from noise interference from time to time, mine works fine say 95% of the time. I've tried on the 2215 with T68i and its BT handsfree earpiece and just great. Sorry to hear bad reviews about BT but I believe the technology has a lot of potential for us who hate cables hook-ups. :?

[neomotion]

Bluetooth works, and if correctly implemented, it works great. I am talking about the new Nokia Ngage. We sell them at work, and me and a colleague spend a few hours with this device with tony hawk in it. It is sooooo simple to start a multiplayer game which uses bluetooth. This convinces me that BT works. That most of the developers don't put quality stuff together is the main reason many people have problems with BT. My Siemens S55 works flawless with any headset out there. So why all the negative sound? If you don't like BT, nobody is forcing you to use it. Just look for something else, instead of spending your time complaining about it. Just my 2 cents.

PS: The Ngage with TH is truly a great multiplayer experience. Go ahead and try the damn thing.

[SassKwatch]

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20031013S0040

"Bluetooth is dead. There, I've said it. I feel better already.........."

The author takes no pleasure in the above statement and neither do I. I wanted bluetooth to work. It showed great promise.......

We had what...., 3 or 4 years of continual "This is the year of Bluetooth" proclamations coming from numerous sources? And we're still waiting.

Maybe if everyone now climbs on board the 'Bluetooth is Dead' bandwagon, maybe next year actually will be the year something tremendously good does happen!!! :mrgreen:

[lapchinj]

"...Bluetooth is toast, finished, over. Stick a fork in it. It's done."

WOW :shocked!: it's about time somebody finally said it. I thought I was the only one thinking this way and figured that I was missing something. Great technology - but it didn't work when you needed it the most. It was like car that wouldn't always start and nobody could figure out why. Yeah, everyone had ideas and workarounds but nobody was able to make it work all the time (AKA reliably). Every time I went to use it (the car and bluetooth) I said a little prayer.
I eventually dumped both and have been happy ever since. :alfdance: :alfdance: :alfdance:

Jeff -

[Ed Hansberry]

We had what...., 3 or 4 years of continual "This is the year of Bluetooth" proclamations coming from numerous sources? And we're still waiting.
YES! Thank you! :werenotworthy:

Bluetooth is the modern day Apple Mac. Every year from 1987 on was "the year of the Mac is here!" Now, finally, people realize the Mac is a niche product.

[szamot]

and what is even more sad is that in 5 years people will still be saying "this is the year of BT", yep this is it, we are almost here... :|

[JvanEkris]

We had what...., 3 or 4 years of continual "This is the year of Bluetooth" proclamations coming from numerous sources? And we're still waiting.
Bluetooth is the modern day Apple Mac. Every year from 1987 on was "the year of the Mac is here!" Now, finally, people realize the Mac is a niche product.Sorry Ed,

We keep disagreeing. What is a niche product in your universe ??? Selling 70 million devices a year does not qualify a product as niche to me.....

To give you an idea of penetration. A month or six ago we had a club-meeting with about 300 members. Quite curiously i let my Loox scan the room (it has a range of 100 meters), i found about 200 cellphones and about 150 PDA's. Although i atmit this is not representative for the large global mass, it makes you think about the penetration. I also do the same thing at airports, i usually catch about 10 people waiting at the gate, making their last calls before boarding. This is more representative, indicating that about 1 in 20 has a cellphone with bluetooth with him. Probably a lot of people also have secured the BT-device by responding to unknown scans, improving these numbers.

Jaap

[Ed Hansberry]

We keep disagreeing. What is a niche product in your universe ??? Selling 70 million devices a year does not qualify a product as niche to me.....
Quantities do not define niche status. The company I work for sells over 108 million decorated pencils each year. We are a niche player in the pencil market.

My universe also doesn't think ISDN modems are mainstream. Ask 10 people on the street what an ISDN modem is and 11 of them will say "A what?" Honestly, if I hadn't have gone to Germany last year and tried to get my Pocket PC online in the hotel room and couldn't figure out what that goofy connector was, I wouldn't have even known there was such a thing as an ISDN modem. I have a ISDN router and do know what ISDN is. I had no clue that some places used it in homes.

[Duncan]

We had what...., 3 or 4 years of continual "This is the year of Bluetooth" proclamations coming from numerous sources? And we're still waiting.

You spend as long as you like 'waiting'. The rest of us will just carry on using Bluetooth products as we have done for years now...

Looking for a 'year of Bluetooth' is just silly - it is a mass market product right now - and one that has 'seeped' into general usage. Name the 'Year of the PC' or the 'Year of WiFi' or the 'Year of the CD-ROM' - you can't, because like Bluetooth it is impossible to see just when they became so prevalent...

Of course it might be worth repeating after me: 'Just because Bluetooth hasn't taken off yet where I live doesn't mean the rest of the world is as backward'

Quantities do not define niche status.

Couldn't agree more Ed! It isn't quantities but visibility that matters.

In my town there are 11 (seriously!) mobile phone shops. Every single one of them has displays of the latest handsets in their windows - in every single case the majority of those have BT built-in. Each of those shops has a display of Bluetooth headsets and BT hands-free units - the main Vodafone shop has them displayed in the window. The main O2 shop has a whole display table centre stage for Bluetooth.

Walk with me to our local Dixons (the major high street PC and electronics store). A whole section of wall lined with PDAs - all but two of them with built-in BT - and a large poster for the Tungsten T3 - which feature is picked out in the largest font? Splashed across the top? 'Built-in Bluetooth'! What's that camera displayed prominently on the display next to the PDAs? Why - it's a Sony with built-in Bluetooth - and this is picked out as one of the three key features too!

Let's walk by the games section - oh, a Nokia N-Gage - with a placard telling me how I can play a friend with the built-in Bluetooth...

Walking past the laptops what do I find? All but two of the highlighted laptops have Bluetooth built-in!

I wonder into my local newsagents and peruse the PC magazines - every single one has Bluetooth products being reviewed, group-tested, advertised etc.

My - for a niche product Bluetooth is giving a good impression of being mainstream...

Ed - I would hazard a guess that BILLIONS of pencils are sold each year - which does make your 108 million a niche. Here, however, we are talking IT where 70 million IS a large number (don't forget as well - the Bluetooth market has been growing at speed over the past few years - bucking the trend in IT generally) - especially when you can discount much of North America...

I really do get the feeling that two years from now, when you are surrounded by peopel using Bluetooth, you'll still be there (like the Narnian dwarfs) going: 'Bluetooth is doomed to fail!'.

I can't stress this enough - Bluetooth is not dying - it is thriving - patently, obviously thriving and nothing you can say can change what is a verifiable fact...! If you want to deny this you have to find a way to do so even in light of high market penetration all around me...

Oh and one more point:

We had what...., 3 or 4 years of continual "This is the year of the Pocket PC" proclamations coming from numerous sources? And we're still waiting.

How does that sound as a statement? Most people I know who use PDAs use Palms. My local Dixons tells me that the Tunstens are outselling all the Pocket PCs by a large margin. Friends tell me that my Pocket PCs are complicated and need constant resets (the ones that don't call it a Palm Pilot). Every one of the T3 reviews I have seen to date has made it 'Editors Choice' - and most have commented that it could drive a nail into the Pocket PCs coffin.

Yet - where is the 'Pocket PC is dead' article? Let's check the tick boxes - buggy software (ActiveSync, alarms etc.) - tick; a niche product - tick; several versions required for it to get to a point of real consumer-friendly product - tick; lack of major market penetration after several years - tick...

I'm not going to argue that the Pocket PC is a failure, dead or dying - but I will argue that it could be thought of a such simply by applying the same criteria you use to judge Bluetooth...

[Scott R]

and what is even more sad is that in 5 years people will still be saying "this is the year of BT", yep this is it, we are almost here... :|Yes, we are "almost here."

When these "people" proclaimed 2001 as the year of Bluetooth, what products did they have to prove it? Palm Solutions Group (now palmOne) dipped their toe in the water with the Tungsten T. They're actually a good example of people who "didn't get it." They thought they could use it as a Wi-Fi replacement and wired their new building with Bluetooth access points. I suspect they later ran into difficulties with it as it really isn't meant for that sort of thing. Then there was the iPaq 3870. What about cellphones? In the US, I think you had the Sony-Ericsson T68i and there was no such thing as affordable unlimited data usage by any of the GSM providers, so actually taking advantage of it meant paying through the nose. You also had a couple of Bluetooth headsets to choose from. "Drivers" were all immature and flakey.

Fast-forward to the year 2003. All of HP's $300+ PDAs have Bluetooth (when the h4350 hits the stores that will be SIX of them: the h1940, h2215, h4150, h4350, h5150, and h5550). You can also buy BT CF cards for other PPCs. palmOne's most exciting handheld released in some time, the Tungsten T3, also has Bluetooth, as does their Tungsten T2 which is still sold, and you can get a BT card for the OS4 SDIO palmOne devices. Sony's almost-discontinued (?) TG50 has Bluetooth and their new UX40 and UX50 do as well. The almost-released Tapwave Zodiac will also. There are several Bluetooth cellphones available (though still GSM only) and T-Mobile offers an affordable unlimited data plan with no restrictions on how you use it. Nokia's N-Gage, a convergent cell phone and gaming device also has it. Additionally, there are numerous Bluetooth headsets to choose from. I'm probably leaving out a lot of stuff. Finally, the software/drivers are much more mature then they were two years ago.

Is this THE year of Bluetooth? I don't know. I'd hold off on making such a bold claim till nearly every cell phone and nearly every PDA was equipped witht Bluetooth, but this year is certainly looking good for the technology. It's certainly a far cry from being in its death bed.

Scott

[Duncan]

How about some solid facts and independent market predictions for this 'dying' technology?

Bluetooth shipments by unit:

2001 - 10 million
2002 - 35 million (245% market growth!)
2003 - 70 million+ (estimate)
2004 - 130 / 150 million (two different independent estimates)
2007 - sales predicted to hit $1.7 billion!

Number of current Bluetooth enabled consumer products = 1000+

Categories of Bluetooth enabled products currently:

Access points
PDAs
PCs
Laptops
Headsets
Projectors
Cars
Mobile phones
Keyboards
Mice
Printers
Dongles and adaptors
Cameras
Camcorders
VCRs
Hands-free sets
Modems
Cordless telephones
Microwave ovens
Fridge-freezers
Washer-dryers
Remote-controllers
Whiteboards
GPS receivers
Remote controlled toys (car, robot)
Pens
Scanners
Vending machines
Air conditioners
Portable audio/video jukeboxes
Product tags

Blueooth Promoter (core) Group:

Agere Systems
Bluetooth SIG, Inc.
Ericsson Technology Licensing AB
IBM Corporation
Intel Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Motorola, Inc.
Nokia
Toshiba Corporation

Associate Members = 137 companies

Adopter Members = 2400+ companies (developing or already developed Bluetooth products)

Expected arrival of version 1.2 - March 2004

[felixdd]

We had what...., 3 or 4 years of continual "This is the year of Bluetooth" proclamations coming from numerous sources? And we're still waiting.


What about the "year of the television", or "year of the microwave"? Or like others have pointed out -- "year of the PC"? When PC's first came out they were regarded as elaborate calculators, or nonessential toys. Now it's hard to find a house without a PC.

Sometimes prevalence comes even when the product in question is arguable in terms of quality. Granted, the PC today is nothing like the PC's of yesteryear, but I feel that it's equally naive to think that bluetooth will not improve, in one way or another, as time goes on.

And by the by -- among all my friends and myself, none of us have had problems with Bluetooth. Even in my local PPC user group meeting we'd BT link-up our T68i's with our 2215's or Loox, etc. We've never ran into a scenario where it failed on us. I'm not bringing this up to discredit those who are angry because their BT setup failed to work -- just remember that for every one setup that doesn't work, there are many that does. This is sort of like a desktop: there are many that work well, but why do you think Leo Laporte still calls them "personal confusers?" (Oh God did I just quote TechTV? I'm too far gone!)

[hollis_f]

I wonder into my local newsagents and peruse the PC magazines - every single one has Bluetooth products being reviewed, group-tested, advertised etc.

My - for a niche product Bluetooth is giving a good impression of being mainstream...


For me the moment I realised it was no longer anything like a niche product was when I saw a Bluetooth product being sold in our local supermarket. Here in the UK BT is now mainstream enough to be sold alongside soap powders and breakfast cereals.

[DubWireless]

hey - i found someone else called Ed who takes a more balanced approach to comenting on the whole Bluetooh story:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Bluetooth_Is_Alive_and_Well

gald to see Bluetooth bashing isn't practiced by all Eds ;)

this post has been posted from my, so called, "niche" iBook :lol:

[DubWireless]

We had what...., 3 or 4 years of continual "This is the year of Bluetooth" proclamations coming from numerous sources? And we're still waiting.

sure, if you put your faith in the likes of marketing spinners and some "industry" analysts, the only time to believe predictions of what will happen in the future (especially in the tech world) is after the prediction actually happened!! - of course there have been many others who keep saying it's doomed every year...

it's best to treat with suspicions the agenda of people with such extreme predictions - their motives are usually less about the technology and more about making copy for publications and maybe giving them that old faithful 'as i predicted in 200x' lines for constant re-use in their future writings...

what ever about these amazing this will be the 'year of X' claims - it definatley isn't dead... technologies can serve a useful purpose without having to make a big song and dance about it... perhaps it will just get on with it and deliver some wireless solutions that are useful to it's users without all the extreme hype called for by either camp...

[SassKwatch]

Looking for a 'year of Bluetooth' is just silly - it is a mass market product right now - and one that has 'seeped' into general usage.

Who's **looking for** the 'year of BT'? Certainly not I. Personally, I couldn't care less if it succeeds or fails. It's a piece of technology, not a religion.

I was simply commenting on the humorous prognositcations of a wide array of BT advocates over the last few years. And it occurred to me that the irony of the technology may just be that it will take a series of 'BT is Dead' articles to make it really take off. Ed may well have done more for the future of BT by starting this thread than all the previous 'This is the year of...' prognosticators ever could.

You clearly have a much more liberal definition of 'mass market product' than do I. IMO, products only reach 'mass market' status when everyone and their Aunt Edith is using them. A 900mHz 'cordless' phone, maybe even a 2.4mHz phone of the cordless variety, is 'mass market' today. BT is not.

[SassKwatch]

......the only time to believe predictions of what will happen in the future (especially in the tech world) is after the prediction actually happened!!...

No kidding? Well aren't we just the master of the obvious.

[JustinGTP]

hey - i found someone else called Ed who takes a more balanced approach to comenting on the whole Bluetooh story:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Bluetooth_Is_Alive_and_Well

gald to see Bluetooth bashing isn't practiced by all Eds ;)

this post has been posted from my, so called, "niche" iBook :lol:

Agreed. Its not dead, its being extremely blown out of porportion. I don't even know how you guys can say its dead. There hasnt been any newsflash of plummeting sales, infact, they are going up. Talk about grabbing something from thin air and then create a controversy out of it just to get some attention. Anyone could say that Bluetooth is dead, but you still have no proof that it is, and why do you say its dead? Just because you don't like it? :roll:

-Justin.

[marcelol]

I think what folks on either side of the argument are missing is that

A) BT has been more generally available, and had time to mature, in Europe ( more specifically Western European countries ), and Southern Asia ( being around where the technology is being manufactured kinda helps ). This cannot be said where the first round of BT enabled phones only started to make their way into the mainstream Early Last Year.

B) The sort of market "education" that's occurred elsewhere, hasn't existed here "on the other side of the big water". As far as even most tech consumers are concerned, BT is either for using a headset with their cellphone, or letting their MS keyboard connect to their PC. Only since earlier this year have some portable PC's (The Dell 8500 is a good example) that were BT enabled portables been available.

C) The maturity of the software drivers for PC's simply hasn't been of
what most American consumers would consider "robust" enough to make BT's connectivity something that would garner enough mindshare to make it a success.

D) If there are as many devices out there with BT support as in the list I've seen, it further strengthens the point behind item "C", because just because a washing machine has support for BT. What's of real value to the consumer isn't that once it has a problem, that it can communicate to the service person the nature of the problem. Rather, it is that it is able to communicate with my either my PC, or PPC, in some of the same fashion. i.e. "Maytag Washer Alert ! I will overflow in approximately 60 seconds !".
Now if MY washing machine were able to do that, THAT might get consumers attention.

[Duncan]

Who's **looking for** the 'year of BT'? Certainly not I. Personally, I couldn't care less if it succeeds or fails. It's a piece of technology, not a religion.

Touchy! I was commenting on the habit of many tech writers to look for a technology to 'happen' when clearly Bluetooth is already here. Why you seemed to take it as a dig at you is beyond me!

You clearly have a much more liberal definition of 'mass market product' than do I. IMO, products only reach 'mass market' status when everyone and their Aunt Edith is using them. A 900mHz 'cordless' phone, maybe even a 2.4mHz phone of the cordless variety, is 'mass market' today. BT is not.

Nonsense! To me mass market is more about being part of the commercial 'furniture', all aroud us, accepted and easily available (as it is for much of the world). Take DVD players - still (in the UK anyway) not universal (in the way VCRs are) - but mass market anyway... As with many of these terms there is more than one way of interpreting the underlying idea! WiFi - for the sake of balance has also (recently) become a mass market product.

[Duncan]

D) If there are as many devices out there with BT support as in the list I've seen, it further strengthens the point behind item "C", because just because a washing machine has support for BT. What's of real value to the consumer isn't that once it has a problem, that it can communicate to the service person the nature of the problem. Rather, it is that it is able to communicate with my either my PC, or PPC, in some of the same fashion. i.e. "Maytag Washer Alert ! I will overflow in approximately 60 seconds !".
Now if MY washing machine were able to do that, THAT might get consumers attention.

I agree - many of these products are part of a 'third wave' - wave one - mobile phones making BT 'everywhere' at speed; wave two - PC, laptop and PDA - BT expands its 'range'; wave three - is beginning to happen - the move into every area (in the domestic and commercial spheres) that it can be used to improve life. BT hands-free sets are being driven by road safety laws/concerns, BT VCRs and other home appliances are driven by changing lifestyles etc. Frankly this 'third' wave is the most exciting one of all...!

[Christian]

I can still remember that Bluetooth was one of the only technologies that remained on the "top 10 over-hyped technologies of the year" for more than one year. :lol:

Seriously though, I consider myself to be firmly in the "geek" category and I really feel that I have gone out of my way to try to make Bluetooth work. My 2215 rarely recognizes my 1945, and when it does the connection usually breaks down during file transfer. My "cutting edge" Bluetooth GPS has yet to (after dozens of attempts) remain connected long enough for me to actually make it to my destination. Neither iPaq can reliably connect to my PC, and I had to return the senselessly overpriced printer adapter I tried out because it never worked at all.

I don't view Bluetooth as a networking standard or anything else other than what it claims to be. All I can say is that my computer setups use lots of cables, and so far Bluetooth has not succeeded in replacing any of them. :?

[DubWireless]

......the only time to believe predictions of what will happen in the future (especially in the tech world) is after the prediction actually happened!!...

No kidding? Well aren't we just the master of the obvious.

huh... if you know it's obvious what was your point :?

[darrylb]

Categories of Bluetooth enabled products currently:



You forgot suitcases... :mrgreen:

[Ed Hansberry]

Categories of Bluetooth enabled products currently:



You forgot suitcases... :mrgreen:
And also forgot to mention how many have BT devices that never turn it on. I know several with Nokia 3650 phones that got it for the cool shape and camera and have never even ventured into the BT menus simply because they have no other BT devices and couldn't possibly care. Same with lots of BT enabled printers. Most people just stick a USB cable in it and don't worry about partnering and discovering and all that mess. Even if I had a BT printer and BT enabled laptop, I guarantee you I'd slap in a USB cable.

[freitasm]

And just to keep the flame going... Just today received the Bluetooth SIG kit with some freebies and a CD with some information and logos.

As a member of the SIG I can use the animation in the CD as part of my promotion material... So here it goes: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=1648 (the article links to a flash presentation download).

Oh well, my bandwidth usage is already going up this month, anyway... 8)

[Duncan]

And also forgot to mention how many have BT devices that never turn it on. I know several with Nokia 3650 phones that got it for the cool shape and camera and have never even ventured into the BT menus simply because they have no other BT devices and couldn't possibly care.

But again - where you live is somewhat behind the rest of the world when it comes to personal wireless technology! FWIW mind you - I know one or two people who bought 3650s for the design and not the BT - but then that is how it was pushed! I also know a number of people who bought T610s, T68s etc. for the Bluetooth. Headsets have taken off big time here and the advantages of going wireless have not been lost on people... Then there are those buying the Nokia N-Gage for the multi-player features (the TV advert for the Nokia is based entirely around the multi-player Blueooth feature - with the end slogan? 'Bluetooth inside'!). Not to mention the fact that Bluetooth hands-free kits for the car are going through the roof and you can't say that people will buy those and not use the Bluetooth!

Actually - that's where the third wave of Bluetooth take-up is going - the technology gradually getting hidden behind the uses people put it too!

Same with lots of BT enabled printers. Most people just stick a USB cable in it and don't worry about partnering and discovering and all that mess. Even if I had a BT printer and BT enabled laptop, I guarantee you I'd slap in a USB cable.

Really? You would make things harder for yourself just to support your beliefs about Bluetooth? Ed - I'm typing this on my laptop downstairs (where I often work). My noisy printer is upstairs behind closed doors. I often send things to print and I'm stuffed if I'm walking all the way upstairs and messing around with cables when the BT connection is so easy and always there!

C'mon Ed - you started this thread by supporting the notion that Bluetooth is dead - have you not, despite all of the positive accounts here, with all of the facts figures etc. given here, budged one bit? You know you want too...! :wink:

darrylb,

You forgot suitcases...

I did! Are you referring to the suitcase that can never be left behind/stolen (lets out an alarm if you move too far away from it)? I so want one of those! :)

[Ed Hansberry]

Same with lots of BT enabled printers. Most people just stick a USB cable in it and don't worry about partnering and discovering and all that mess. Even if I had a BT printer and BT enabled laptop, I guarantee you I'd slap in a USB cable.

Really? You would make things harder for yourself just to support your beliefs about Bluetooth? It has nothing to do with beliefs. It has to do with convenience and I'd much rather use a USB cable than fool with detecting and partnering. My printers are on a desktop up stairs (connected with cables) and I use WiFi to print to them with my laptop from downstairs - about 50 feet away through walls, floors and the washroom. Bluetooth wouldn't cut it. As it is, I ordered a WiFi extender for my router that should be here in a few days because the very corner of my house, where my favorite chair is, gets me usually one and maybe two bars with 802.11b. No way would I consider buying several BT AP points or repeaters or whatever to get across the house.

Of course, the range on 802.11b is pretty good outside so I can go well into the back yard and still be on my WLAN, well outside of the 100ft range of BT.

Explain to me again how a technology built for PAN is good to use in WLAN scenarios? So many people say that WiFi and BT aren't to be compared then you go and use BT in a way that it wasn't designed for and one that is perfect for WiFi. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either BT is PAN, or it isn't, and if it isn't, quit complaining when people compare it to WiFi. People compare scenarios, not technologies and too many use BT beyond what it is supposed to do, taking it into WiFi scenarios.

[Duncan]

Same with lots of BT enabled printers. Most people just stick a USB cable in it and don't worry about partnering and discovering and all that mess. Even if I had a BT printer and BT enabled laptop, I guarantee you I'd slap in a USB cable.

Really? You would make things harder for yourself just to support your beliefs about Bluetooth? It has nothing to do with beliefs. It has to do with convenience and I'd much rather use a USB cable than fool with detecting and partnering. My printers are on a desktop up stairs (connected with cables) and I use WiFi to print to them with my laptop from downstairs - about 50 feet away through walls, floors and the washroom. Bluetooth wouldn't cut it. As it is, I ordered a WiFi extender for my router that should be here in a few days because the very corner of my house, where my favorite chair is, gets me usually one and maybe two bars with 802.11b. No way would I consider buying several BT AP points or repeaters or whatever to get across the house.

Of course, the range on 802.11b is pretty good outside so I can go well into the back yard and still be on my WLAN, well outside of the 100ft range of BT.

Explain to me again how a technology built for PAN is good to use in WLAN scenarios? So many people say that WiFi and BT aren't to be compared then you go and use BT in a way that it wasn't designed for and one that is perfect for WiFi. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either BT is PAN, or it isn't, and if it isn't, quit complaining when people compare it to WiFi. People compare scenarios, not technologies and too many use BT beyond what it is supposed to do, taking it into WiFi scenarios.

That's hundred metre range Ed - not foot. I've yet to find anywhere in my house or grounds that is too far for BT to stretch. The pairing an bonding only happens the first time - from then on it is automatic. As for PAN and WLAN - both BT and WiFi are designed to be less restictive than their wired counterparts. BT behaves like a USB cable in connecting me to my printer but allows me the flexibility of leaving my desk. WiFi if I had a number of PCs on a network configuration then WiFi would make sense.

Your tack, Ed, seems to be: If BT is a USB replacement then why not use a USB cable; if you take the BT equipment further than a USB cable then it isn't a USB replacement. That, I'm afraid, is very woolly logic indeed! The whole point of a wireless USB cable replacement is to make the connection more flexible - to argue that it can only be a USB replecement if it is as inflexible as a USB cable is surely to miss the point entirely!

Honestly - getting a WiFi access point just to connect my printer into so I can print long distance is overkill - this is precisely the sort of thing that BT was designed to make simple - ad-hoc ,as you need them, connections between two devices that otherwise would need to be next to each other...!

Oh and Ed - it has everything to do with beliefs. You beleive that fiddling about with a USB connection is harder than simply pressing print on your laptop - which is all I have to do to send something to my printer - no bonding, no detecting, no messing about. Your method is highly inconvenient and the only way you can make it seem the more convenient method is by misrepresenting what BT printing would involve.

While I'm at it - WiFi is either LAN or not Ed. One to one connections are not what WiFi was deisgned for y'know - it was designed for networking... :wink:

[JvanEkris]

Explain to me again how a technology built for PAN is good to use in WLAN scenarios? So many people say that WiFi and BT aren't to be compared then you go and use BT in a way that it wasn't designed for and one that is perfect for WiFi. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either BT is PAN, or it isn't, and if it isn't, quit complaining when people compare it to WiFi. People compare scenarios, not technologies and too many use BT beyond what it is supposed to do, taking it into WiFi scenarios.Well, to switch from my WiFi network to GPRS for example. As explained by Duncan, Bluetooth equiped GPRS phones are more a commodity than exception in Europe. So when WiFi isn't available (there is no network roaming available, so WiFi is completely useless when travelling), i want to use something more practical that is available everywhere.

BT is designed for replacing cables, so it partially is designed for replacing CAT5 cables :). Knowing that my PDA already has bluetooth available, i rather use my bluetooth access point than my WiFi access point. However, WiFi is faster, but my PDA hardly notices it.......

Jaap

[Ed Hansberry]

That's hundred metre range Ed - not foot.Whoops. Yup. 10 meters with some devices, 100 with others. One of the main reasons I got WiFi was my 3800 couldn't talk to my t68 unless they were on the same floor and within 2 rooms of each other. I decided to do my LAN right and got an 802.11b router. Took 30 minutes to set it up, including installing WiFi drivers on the PPC and my desktop.I've yet to find anywhere in my house or grounds that is too far for BT to stretch. The pairing an bonding only happens the first time - from then on it is automatic.And all other things being equal, I can get a printer up and running on USB faster than you can on BT. My grandmother can get a printer up and running on USB. Not so sure I could say that about BT.

[marcelol]

That's hundred metre range Ed - not foot. I've yet to find anywhere in my house or grounds that is too far for BT to stretch.

> You must be on some SERIOUS flatland there, buddy. Because in the >office with a (SECOND GENERATION) Belkin F8T001, If I step into the >next hall, I lose connection. Mind you, we are running 802.11B wireless >accesspoints, but the reality of it is, that ANY BT device will have to >contend with cross-interference. Any way you slice it, I've yet to actually
>come across ANYONE who can get anywhere CLOSE the 100m range,
> and still have signal.


The pairing an bonding only happens the first time - from then on it is automatic. As for PAN and WLAN - both BT and WiFi are designed to be less restictive than their wired counterparts. BT behaves like a USB cable in connecting me to my printer but allows me the flexibility of leaving my desk.

Your tack, Ed, seems to be: If BT is a USB replacement then why not use a USB cable; if you take the BT equipment further than a USB cable then it isn't a USB replacement. That, I'm afraid, is very woolly logic indeed!

> Perhaps his logic is wolly, but the relevant point is crazy like a fox.
> If I have my PPC paired to my PC, and I want to sync with my system
> in the family room, from the PPC in the living room, you should
> logically expect that it WILL make connection and KEEP connection.
> The simple fact that as implemented, most BT implementations beyond
> the simple audio or OBEX file push profiles, are a JOKE. They have the
> reliability of a snowball's chance in the sahara in August.

The whole point of a wireless USB cable replacement is to make the connection more flexible - to argue that it can only be a USB replecement if it is as inflexible as a USB cable is surely to miss the point entirely!

> Flexible relies on FUNCTIONAL. And frankly, most defined BT profiles
> even today, a good two years after the hardware has become more
> generally available for PC's/PPC's, it's still HIT or MISS.


While I'm at it - WiFi is either LAN or not Ed. One to one connections are not what WiFi was deisgned for y'know - it was designed for networking... :wink:

> WiFi is a Lan architecture and a set of protocols. BT "hopes" to cloak
> itself as "Lan-ish", by dubbing the monicker of PAN. Well, "Personal
> area" or not, if one device cannot maintain a stable connection with
> another device that is within my PERSONAL EYESIGHT, it's not function
> doesn't classify with me, as "networking".

[freitasm]

Same with lots of BT enabled printers. Most people just stick a USB cable in it and don't worry about partnering and discovering and all that mess. Even if I had a BT printer and BT enabled laptop, I guarantee you I'd slap in a USB cable.

Really? You would make things harder for yourself just to support your beliefs about Bluetooth? It has nothing to do with beliefs. It has to do with convenience and I'd much rather use a USB cable than fool with detecting and partnering. My printers are on a desktop up stairs (connected with cables) and I use WiFi to print to them with my laptop from downstairs - about 50 feet away through walls, floors and the washroom. Bluetooth wouldn't cut it. As it is, I ordered a WiFi extender for my router that should be here in a few days because the very corner of my house, where my favorite chair is, gets me usually one and maybe two bars with 802.11b. No way would I consider buying several BT AP points or repeaters or whatever to get across the house.

Of course, the range on 802.11b is pretty good outside so I can go well into the back yard and still be on my WLAN, well outside of the 100ft range of BT.

Explain to me again how a technology built for PAN is good to use in WLAN scenarios? So many people say that WiFi and BT aren't to be compared then you go and use BT in a way that it wasn't designed for and one that is perfect for WiFi. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either BT is PAN, or it isn't, and if it isn't, quit complaining when people compare it to WiFi. People compare scenarios, not technologies and too many use BT beyond what it is supposed to do, taking it into WiFi scenarios.

To keep it short:

Partnering is only done once. No messing after this.

You have a WLAN? Wow! Everyone has a LAN that can bridge (through a router or DSL model) to a WLAN... But having your own WLAN? :roll:

[Duncan]

That's hundred metre range Ed - not foot.Whoops. Yup. 10 meters with some devices, 100 with others. One of the main reasons I got WiFi was my 3800 couldn't talk to my t68 unless they were on the same floor and within 2 rooms of each other. I decided to do my LAN right and got an 802.11b router. Took 30 minutes to set it up, including installing WiFi drivers on the PPC and my desktop.I've yet to find anywhere in my house or grounds that is too far for BT to stretch. The pairing an bonding only happens the first time - from then on it is automatic.And all other things being equal, I can get a printer up and running on USB faster than you can on BT. My grandmother can get a printer up and running on USB. Not so sure I could say that about BT.

The 3870 and T68 are both class two devices. If you didn't have Bluetooth you would only be able to connect via IR (withing sight of each other) or cable (clumsy connection). As it is you can connect them even it the 3870 is in your bag or across the room. Thus it fits the concept of USB replacement just fine (except when you want to stretch the device usage beyond normal bounds).

I have no BT device that took longer to set up than 10 minutes (most took less than 5)which beats your 30 minute WiFi set up by a mile. Once set up the first time I can be connected by Bluetooth in the time it takes you to figure out which way up the USB plug needs to be. The time it takes to get up and running in the firsta place is by-the-by - so what if it take slightly longer (only slightly mind) - think about all the oodles of saved time in the future...!

I ahve to say Ed - you really do seem to be 'reaching' now. Comparing the set-up time of USB and Bluetooth and complaining about the extended reach of a 3870 and mobile - well we're into the realm of nit-picking now...!

marcelol.

Most of your points are pure rhetoric without any actual examples or evidence to back them up (and go aginst the experiences of many, many people in this thread alone). Picking up on the one solid example - your office. It is indeed true that in some heavy WiFi usage areas the range of Bluetooth devices can be greatly reduced. It does require fairly heavy WiFi to make a real noticeable differnce mind - but it is an issue. Version 1.1 of Bluetooth (the current version) made interference less of a problem and the upcoming version 1.2 makes it very rare indeed. This is of course a major problem with wireless proliferation across the board and something that both the BT and WiFi groups have had to consider. Already some office buildings are having serious problems with interference from other WiFi networks in the offices next door. Of course with Bluetooth as well as WiFi interference tend to cut down range more often than it prevent communication.

My house and grounds are not unusual by any means (and certainly the hundred metres is a theoretical maximum) but I have never been unable to connect to my MT dongle and printer adaptor from anywhere in the house or out on the lawn. That is simple fact (and I have WiFi in constant use as well).

I kind of puzzled by some people's investement in arguaing the case against Bluetooth. Many of use find it just dandy and have no emotional investment in it - we like it because it works, it 'does what it says on the tin'. Being anti-Bluetooth seems, as far as I can see, to boil down either some fairy tale hope that a 'better' replacement comes along (give that one up -standards and IP battles are too much part of everyday reality now!) or some kind of 'it disappointed me so I don't want anyone to have it' petulance.

I don't know - are ALL of us who have positive Bluetooth experience, and see BT thriving, delusional? Making it up? Religious fanatics? Because I have to tell you - I've seen so many strong accounts from people who find BT to work great - and very little of real substance from the other camp... :?:

[Ed Hansberry]

You have a WLAN? Wow! Everyone has a LAN that can bridge (through a router or DSL model) to a WLAN... But having your own WLAN? :roll:
I think you are confusing Wide Area Network (WAN) with Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN.)

And yes, I have a WLAN. :D

[JustinGTP]

Now this thread is getting argumentative and everyone wants to be right and they think they are right. Someone do us a favour and lock this thread, its already past its deadline.

-Justin.

[alien rider]

I second that motion Justin, I think we need to agree to disagree on this one !!!! :lol: Lively thread though !

Kind regards,

B

[JustinGTP]

-Justin.

[Ed Hansberry]

LOL, locking the thread is what everyone can agree on! :D And yes, very lively.
Honda, here is an idea. Stay on topic, ok? Thanks. Some are following this thread closely. If you don't want any more replies, click down below where it says to unsubscribe to this thread.

[marcelol]

marcelol.

Most of your points are pure rhetoric without any actual examples or evidence to back them up (and go aginst the experiences of many, many people in this thread alone).

> It's a pity that the threads of discussion that I could use as examples
> aren't any longer around their forums, but read on...example ye want
> examples thou shall receive.
>

Picking up on the one solid example - your office. It is indeed true that in some heavy WiFi usage areas the range of Bluetooth devices can be greatly reduced. It does require fairly heavy WiFi to make a real noticeable differnce mind - but it is an issue. Version 1.1 of Bluetooth (the current version) made interference less of a problem and the upcoming version 1.2 makes it very rare indeed.

> The fact that the vast majority of devices out there today are 1.1
> devices isn't so much the issue. The point I was making is that the
> drivers that are out there

This is of course a major problem with wireless proliferation across the board and something that both the BT and WiFi groups have had to consider. Already some office buildings are having serious problems with interference from other WiFi networks in the offices next door. Of course with Bluetooth as well as WiFi interference tend to cut down range more often than it prevent communication.

My house and grounds are not unusual by any means (and certainly the hundred metres is a theoretical maximum) but I have never been unable to connect to my MT dongle and printer adaptor from anywhere in the house or out on the lawn. That is simple fact (and I have WiFi in constant use as well).

I kind of puzzled by some people's investement in arguaing the case against Bluetooth. Many of use find it just dandy and have no emotional investment in it - we like it because it works.

> In so far as those things which DO work. Which profiles have you
> actually made use of on a consisten basis ? Or actually tried to use ?
> BT does inherently perform well for certain things, there's no denying
> that ( anyone who'd deny that would be less than informed ). But ( and
> I'm going to explain this again because apparently you missed it ), as
> the drivers exist today are hit and miss.
>
> Sure, anyone can say that yeah, if they can talk on their headset
> wirelessly walking around the house, that BT works. Well, if I try to use
> the Serial Port Profile, it's hit or miss that it will. I'll give you another
> example since you seem myopically drawn to them. The Digianswer
> BT PCMCIA card is a discontinued LATE 1.0/Early 1.1 device. It's drivers
> set is no longer in development. But...it's implementation of the
> Serial Port Profile is just about Spot ON. I can create an outbound
> serial port connection to my 3650. Even the latest WidComm can't say
> that. I also have a 2nd Gen Belkin BT USB ( and a 1st Gen one as
> well. Both F8T001's ). This latest off the shelf unit can't create an
> outbound SPP connection. Why ? Because of the WidComm drivers.
> Even Belkin's documentation say that you have to create an inbound
> SPP that auto-connects, because apparently the 3650 will turn around
> and try to connect back via that one, when the other one can't ! Well
> that's strange, the almost two year old DigiAnswer card didn't have
> that problem. Hmmmm....
>
> The point I was making wasn't about
> BT being BAD technology ( THAT would be making an emotional
> argument. Which I am not. ), the point I was trying to make is that
> the implemenation of features FOR that technology are shoddy ( or
> spotty at best ), and that THAT creates is that BT is a poor technology,
> which it isn't. A technology can be great, but if some or part of it
> isn't implemented properly. Then sorry, but as far as "mass consumer"
> mindset is concerned, they're going to think it's flaky.

, it 'does what it says on the tin'.

> As I just lengthily explained, it does NOT in all cases, do as it say "on
> the tin". Read below....

Being anti-Bluetooth seems, as far as I can see, to boil down either some fairy tale hope that a 'better' replacement comes along (give that one up -standards and IP battles are too much part of everyday reality now!) or some kind of 'it disappointed me so I don't want anyone to have it' petulance.

> Consumers are funny that way, anti-lock brake technology was around
> back in the 50's, but the implementation was rather hit or miss. It took
> HOW many years for most cars now in production to have ABS systems
> as standard features ? So it's not necessarily petulance. Seems like
> just because something worked for you, you should expect that it
> follows that it MUST work for everyone else. Reverse-petulance ?

I don't know - are ALL of us who have positive Bluetooth experience, and see BT thriving, delusional? Making it up? Religious fanatics? Because I have to tell you - I've seen so many strong accounts from people who find BT to work great - and very little of real substance from the other camp... :?

> Just because the headset profile works, doesn't mean that "everything
> just works", because it doesn't. So the folks fighting with their Nokia's
> on Howard Forums a months back were all delusional, huh ? I'd be
> curious to hear what they'd say in response to that. And that was
> just to get their phone talking to their PC. People were swapping around
> drivers, and steps for configuring this, "You gotta get this adapter" that.
>
> Then there was the the issue when folks discover that
> the 3650 won't talk to the same handsfree that they were just
> using with their SE T68i ! That was due to the fact that
> Nokia strayed from the standard "HandsFree" profile and decided to
> only support the "HeadSet" profile is just a simple example of the
> problem as a whole. The fact is that there is no set "must have
> implemented" minimum standard. If there had been, Nokia would've
> found itself in a position to include "HandsFree" ( never mind you that
> everyone else had implemented their connectivity to HandsFrees using
> that ).
>
> The argument isn't whether Nokia is "at fault" or not. I'm just using it
> as an example.
>

--- So...

Since you wanted more examples, there you go. Not so rhetorical anymore.

[Kati Compton]

marcelol - please use the "quote" feature so we can see WHO you're quoting...

[svblime]

I don't really care to go in depth regarding this debate, but I believe bluetooth is far from it's extinction. I use bluetooth mainly to connect to my ppc and for home networks and it is working flawlessly for me. (also my bluetooth headset which is sooooo essential) I don't know about other implementation of bluetooth, but I thought it was fairly easy to setup for me. No really, I don't understand where all the fuss comes from. Maybe the devices? :?: I have a sony erricsson bt phone, HP 2210, belkin usb bt, and Jabra bt headset.

[Abba Zabba]

Never tried using my bluetooth headset with my ipaq.... cool idea, but why would you? Can't think of any reason to.... if it was stereo headphones (which I believe do exist somewhere) then I can see it being used.....but a mono headset.... nah.
One thing that would be nice is to use all three at the same time.....which unfortunatelly does not work. I believe it's the fault of the Nokia and their implementation of bluetooth. I accepted that limitation though....

Yeah Nokia phones only allow data or voice transmition unlike SE which allow data AND voie to be sent/ received. Nokia... :evil: !!!!


P.S. How many times now have this forum had a discussion about bt and what it "is" or "isn't." Maybe it's time we all take the time to find out what the purpose of this technology was intended to be but not what are hopes of it is. &lt;/rant>

[Thinkingmandavid]

.S. How many times now have this forum had a discussion about bt and what it "is" or "isn't." Maybe it's time we all take the time to find out what the purpose of this technology was intended to be but not what are hopes of it is. &lt;/rant>
I agree with that.
i didnt think this thread would last this long, but it appears there are those who have some strong feelings about bt.
I am planning on setting up a bt network in my place when I actuallyknow what money looks like. :wink:
i want to sit here on this chair like now, using my computer and be able to print using bt. i may use it for wireless but since i have dsl i want to use my wi fi card wireless for the better speeds;)
i will get a sd bt card for my toshiba ppc so i can access net like everyone else. I think bt is here for a while. if it goes what will come in its place?
who has the answer on here for that question? ?

[freitasm]

You have a WLAN? Wow! Everyone has a LAN that can bridge (through a router or DSL model) to a WLAN... But having your own WLAN? :roll:
I think you are confusing Wide Area Network (WAN) with Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN.)

And yes, I have a WLAN. :D

You're right :oops:

[freitasm]

For all people saying that Bluetooth setup is bad and wi-fi setup is good: http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19295

[Thinkingmandavid]

Interesting thread. if we use wi fi there will be problems, if we use bluetooth there will be problems. why? because it is technology created by humans through a human standard, so from the get go it is lacking in perfection and will only work throught the limitation of a humans mind, which in the creation process is/was limited to the finished product. or only by what could be seen at the time.

[kevin mccarthy]

Hi ,
I work in the entertainment industry, and we are slowly adopting bluetooth. You will see it coming soon on consumer gear.
Like small business projectors, and consumer wireless microphones. wireless speakers. for Home theater & highend audio,
the same gear that has cat 6, and firewire, (ie1394) will likely have blue tooth remotes. It is cheap to license and to power. Cheaper than wifi.

It is on some camcorders and DV cams too.
You will start to see it on remotes and stereo headphones also.
It is just starting to reach a saturation point.

In NYC the spectrum of radio is very dense, you have radio, TV, HDTV (which takes up double the band width) cdma, pcs, wifi, and blue tooth all
vying for the same space. And all having their own niche. but blue-tooth because it is lo power has many special wireless, niche products,
radio and head sets for closed secure chanel communications... some pyrotechnic companies are implementing custom devices to use for detonations, and for retail, I have seen inventory devices. Cheaper than the wifi that homedepot uses.


I cant really use gsm, but i do use blue tooth to sync an ipac 5455 to my 12" .powerbook and there is more gsm coming here soon, too.


As to why there are no CDMA bluetooth phones, maybe it has to do with the pricing schemes of the major providers in the us, that GPRS services currently cant sustain the bandwidth that bluetooth would help provide.

[Thinkingmandavid]

As to why there are no CDMA bluetooth phones, maybe it has to do with the pricing schemes of the major providers in the us, that GPRS services currently cant sustain the bandwidth that bluetooth would help provide.




how about explaining what you mean here? The cdma companies such as verizon and sprint dont have any blue tooth phones, but the gsm companies do, such as Cingular :rock on dude!: AT&T, and T-Mobile.

[Janak Parekh]

As to why there are no CDMA bluetooth phones, maybe it has to do with the pricing schemes of the major providers in the us, that GPRS services currently cant sustain the bandwidth that bluetooth would help provide.
No, that's not it. In addition to what thinkingmandavid says, if that's the case, then charge extra, but at least give it to us! :) And, with Verizon especially, there's no need to charge extra anyway, as the cheapest unlimited Express Network plan is $45. 8O

--janak

[Thinkingmandavid]

wait, I thought Verizon was charging 79 bucks for unlimited usage on their network card. I am assuming that is for the service of net usage period :?:
Ok, all carriers reading this thread, DO NOT LISTEN TO JANAK PAREKH!!!!! HE WASNT FEELING WELL WHEN HE SAID conflict is an inevitable result.

[CTSLICK]

As to why there are no CDMA bluetooth phones, maybe it has to do with the pricing schemes of the major providers in the us, that GPRS services currently cant sustain the bandwidth that bluetooth would help provide.
No, that's not it. In addition to what thinkingmandavid says, if that's the case, then charge extra, but at least give it to us! :) And, with Verizon especially, there's no need to charge extra anyway, as the cheapest unlimited Express Network plan is $45. 8O

--janak

even worse...ATT is nailing people for 79.99/mo for unlimited. Thank you T-mobile for unlimited data for the masses.

[Janak Parekh]

wait, I thought Verizon was charging 79 bucks for unlimited usage on their network card. I am assuming that is for the service of net usage period :?:
For PDAs, they charge $44.95 for Wireless Sync, which is an unlimited Express Network plan. I know, I have it set up on the i700 I'm reviewing right now.

Ok, all carriers reading this thread, DO NOT LISTEN TO JANAK PAREKH!!!!! HE WASNT FEELING WELL WHEN HE SAID conflict is an inevitable result.
What on earth are you talking about...? :idontthinkso: I never said any such thing. If you're talking about charging "more", my point is, I'd like to see the carriers implement a price structure and make it a reality, instead of leaving CDMA users high and dry. If that involves a different pricing structure, that's better than having nothing at all!

--janak

[Thinkingmandavid]

LOL, I was in the middle of writing a paper for grad school :lol: somehow that got typed in there, then charge extra that is what I was referring to. If they have a flat price that is literally affordable then that is cool, but saying to charge extra, carriers are already greedy as it is, so that i dont agree with.

For PDAs, they charge $44.95 for Wireless Sync, which is an unlimited Express Network plan. I know, I have it set up on the i700 I'm reviewing right now.


I didnt know that verizon had that plan for pda, that is interesting. Iknew about the 79 buck plan which is just way to much money per month. :!:

[Janak Parekh]

LOL, I was in the middle of writing a paper for grad school :lol:
8O Mixing grad school papers and PPCT posts, are we? I hope you're not talking about your Pocket PC in the paper... unless it's supposed to be there. :razzing: (What's the paper about?)

but saying to charge extra, carriers are already greedy as it is, so that i dont agree with.
True, but believe me, if they have an excuse to charge extra, they won't need me to suggest it. :lol:

I didnt know that verizon had that plan for pda, that is interesting. Iknew about the 79 buck plan which is just way to much money per month. :!:
Yup, it's called "Wireless Sync Unlimited Express Network". The reps rarely know about it -- you have to ask for it specifically, and sometimes you have to wait there while they scroll through about 50 features to find it.

--janak

[Thinkingmandavid]

I use Cingular :rock on dude!: so I am not sure what they will end up doing. They tend to be a bit expensive about certain details :roll:
Mixing grad school papers and PPCT posts, are we? I hope you're not talking about your Pocket PC in the paper
I have to admit when I read this I got to wondering if I had switched them around, but then I remembe editing and reading it through quite a few time.
I am working on my masters in, "Negotiations and Conflict Management" The paper was on a case written by Reisman, it dealt with a moshav and the conflict at one among the families.

[Janak Parekh]

I use Cingular :rock on dude!: so I am not sure what they will end up doing. They tend to be a bit expensive about certain details :roll:
Cingular offers BT phones right now, so I wouldn't worry about them. :)

I am working on my masters in, "Negotiations and Conflict Management" The paper was on a case written by Reisman, it dealt with a moshav and the conflict at one among the families.
As long as you're not talking about Palm-Pocket PC wars... :lol:

--janak

[supac1]

ED,

Are you kidding me? that bluetooth is dead or are you just a pocketpc/technology newbie?. Kinda pathetic if you are the editor of this website with such bad information or are you just biased? either way you have a twisted perception on technologies that is around you. You have single handedly ruined your "GURU" image. Think about that buddy.


Thanks,

Supac

[JustinGTP]

ED,

Are you kidding me? that bluetooth is dead or are you just a pocketpc/technology newbie?. Kinda pathetic if you are the editor of this website with such bad information or are you just biased? either way you have a twisted perception on technologies that is around you. You have single handedly ruined your "GURU" image. Think about that buddy.


Thanks,

Supac

I wouldnt go there if I were you...

[svblime]

Yes, I don't understand all the fuss and why bluetooth is the center of attention for criticism. All this attention on bluetooth seems to me that it's a thriving technology and that it's widely used. It really baffles my mind why people are having such a hard time using bluetooth. Is it that hard to understand to setup partnerships between devices? I am no technical genious, but common if you followed directions and is still unable to get it up and running maybe it's a software problem and you should blame the companys that write the software for it not bluetooth. I have 5 different bt devices and have not had any problems besides the occasional reboots which should be expected. Regardless, with any emerging technology there are always issues and ignorant people that does not know how to follow directions and get it working. My personal experiences completely contradict what this title suggests and bothers me that there are people out there who are suggesting that the bluetooth should be done away with because they do not know how to get it up and running! Criticise all you want but there are still tons of other users who are having great success in using bluetooth and I am pretty sure those users that complain still use bluetooth. Bluetooth will only get better as time passes and eventually something better will come along, but until then Pleeeeeaaase.... BT is Alive and Thriving!!

[Kati Compton]

supac1 has received a (polite) PM. Please no more personal attacks.

[kevin mccarthy]

As to why there are no CDMA bluetooth phones, maybe it has to do with the pricing schemes of the major providers in the us, that GPRS services currently cant sustain the bandwidth that bluetooth would help provide.




how about explaining what you mean here? The cdma companies such as verizon and sprint dont have any blue tooth phones, but the gsm companies do, such as Cingular :rock on dude!: AT&T, and T-Mobile.




sure, think about it.. how mch data transmission is oning on in the states,
normal users folks not us... how much is the average client pulling down.. how many sms messages are going around... ok 100k max..?
in europe... tons.. and the networks are structured to support it..

here in the us in major cities, cdma carriers are struggling to keep up with the high volumn of calls. forget data, so the data traffic is low and the pricing reflects that..
bluetooth woul open up the path for pda's and laptops to connect, and use up alot more bandwidth... and the networks cant support that ammount of traffic......so for a cdma carrier to allow bluetootht they have to have the infrastructure to support it, and most dont... and they are likely to have to restructure, the pricing scheme...
so two things are preventing bluetooth cdma phones. .. cost of rebuilding upgrading existing networks..and lowering the rates for data transmissions...

[belfast-biker]

With Bluetooth, the hard part is making sure you buy respected kit that actually works.

Some of it doesn't, or at least not without jumping through hoops beyond a normal user.

My wavelinker usb dongle was terrible. My Loox handheld was terrible.

My recently-bought ipaq 1940 and Bluetake usb dongle work completely, first time, and all the time, and were easy to install.

Interet/Messenger/SMS/Email/Synchronising in bed, or outside via a gprs/bluetooth phone.

Easy peasy. My view on BT has changed utterly.

[Dave H]

I have to say, my Bluetooth experence was fine, my 3970 connected straight away to my PC and i can use the internet fine, messenger fine (before the upgrade came out, now i cant even logon).

One thing, the built in Bluetooth on the 3970, what is its maximum operating distance? i have a belkin dongle on my PC which states it will work up to 100m, but when u check the signal strength its always weak unless the 3970 is very close by !! any suggesions?

[Thinkingmandavid]

As long as you're not talking about Palm-Pocket PC wars...



Good one! :wink:

The cdma carriers maybe a different story, since gsm with Cingular :rock on dude!: , AT&T, T-mobile go well with bluetooth.

[Janak Parekh]

sure, think about it.. how mch data transmission is oning on in the states, normal users folks not us... how much is the average client pulling down.. how many sms messages are going around... ok 100k max..? in europe... tons.. and the networks are structured to support it..
Do you have numbers to support this? I've used both GPRS and 1xRTT data very heavily here, and from my perspective, we are well positioned to "support it".

here in the us in major cities, cdma carriers are struggling to keep up with the high volumn of calls. forget data, so the data traffic is low and the pricing reflects that..
I can't disagree more strongly. Verizon's service is stellar in New York. I drop perhaps 1 call out of 100. Maybe even less.

bluetooth woul open up the path for pda's and laptops to connect, and use up alot more bandwidth... and the networks cant support that ammount of traffic......so for a cdma carrier to allow bluetootht they have to have the infrastructure to support it, and most dont...
But why would it? Right now, you can buy a cable to connect your phone to your laptop. And, even if it did, I did suggest they restructure the pricing scheme. It's been years now -- it's about time they did something!

cost of rebuilding upgrading existing networks..
No. 1xRTT is fully provisioned throughout Sprint's network and 80% or so of Verizon's. They're already moving on to 1xEV-DO, and that's available in Washington and San Diego.

--janak

[Thinkingmandavid]

I think the money is going to be about what each person can afford. Maybe for me 45 is toomuch, but for the next person it isnt. The service should work well for pda/laptop internet connections. I personally do not think having bt hinders that at all.
Of course you can always challenge verizon on theirs since they say the having the most reliable network :roll: :lol:

[Janak Parekh]

Of course you can always challenge verizon on theirs since they say the having the most reliable network :roll: :lol:
In the Northeast, they do. Light-years ahead of the other services I've tried.

--janak

[Thinkingmandavid]

Seems to me every carrier has its 'dark' spots.
any carrier you go with has areas that the phone may not work although it is covered on the coverage map. to many factors in wireless service. so your bt phone is only limited by where there is coverage. so any of the carriers will work for most people, that is why i feel all carriers should have bt. but of course they those that dont are pushing for consumers to buy the pda phones.

[Janak Parekh]

Seems to me every carrier has its 'dark' spots.
Yes, but all carriers aren't equivalent. You'll notice that Verizon and AT&T generally have more penetrating coverage, due to their legacy as existing in the US since the 80s. They had the opportunity to raise towers in the pre-NIMBY days. The fact that they use 800MHz frequencies in many places also makes a big difference (the 800MHz frequency is now mostly saturated, and that's why Sprint and T-Mobile are forced to use 1900MHz).

Also, some carriers support analog, while others' don't, which affects people's choices.

--janak

[Thinkingmandavid]

Remember, some of the big carries owe their size tobuying smaller carriers. so while it may seem they have been around along time, it doesnt mean they did it alone. you forget the bells, they have merged and now use the name cingular :rock on dude!: so they are the second largest in the U.S. the only company to not use analog is T-Mobile.
Cingular :rock on dude!: uses it in their tdma network and so does Att, and sprint and verizon use it in their cdma network.
Cingular :rock on dude!: 850 in gsm and 1900 is the standard for gsm in the U.S.
cdma, tdma, uses the upper frequency as well for their digital signals, such is the reason for tri mode phones, two digital frequencies plus analog.
tri band is three gsm frequecies.

[Janak Parekh]

Remember, some of the big carries owe their size tobuying smaller carriers.
I'm fully aware. I didn't cite Cingular largely because they're a rather complex situation, as they have been a "hybrid" TDMA/GSM company for years. Also note that Bell Atlantic Mobile is a part of Verizon, so the Bells went in multiple directions.

the only company to not use analog is T-Mobile.
Not entirely. Sprint supports analog roaming, but it's not their network, and the roaming has a nontrivial fee. Good for emergencies, mostly. In any case, I didn't enumerate carriers on the analog aspect of the problem.

cdma, tdma, uses the upper frequency as well for their digital signals, such is the reason for tri mode phones, two digital frequencies plus analog. tri band is three gsm frequecies.
Note that digital technologies aren't tied to a particular frequency. CDMA, TDMA and GSM all support both the 800 and 1900 bands in the US -- it's a function of what spectrum carriers have. GSM also supports 900/1800 in Europe, and wCDMA uses 2100 in Europe.

--janak

[BigDaddy]

All the good little boys and girls go to logitech and take a look at the new keyboards. Though I am sure that these will not work out of the box with you ipaq as a keyboard, but they will serve as a way for those of us who sometimes use bluetooth to connect our PPC and bluetooth phones to our PC's for fun stuff as image transfers and SMS/MMSing.

[Thinkingmandavid]

Not entirely. Sprint supports analog roaming, but it's not their network, and the roaming has a nontrivial fee. Good for emergencies, mostly. In any case, I didn't enumerate carriers on the analog aspect of the problem.


notice your reponse, I said T-mobile is the only carrier to not use analog. At one time they did and they charged per minute in usage. There is more analog in the U.S. than digital for carriers.

Yes, but all carriers aren't equivalent. You'll notice that Verizon and AT&T generally have more penetrating coverage
That is inaccurate, they do not have the most penetrating, in fact there isnt any basis for that statement. and....

I'm fully aware. I didn't cite Cingular largely because they're a rather complex situation, as they have been a "hybrid" TDMA/GSM company for years
This isnt relevant, being hybrid does not take away from the size of the company and doesnt take away from the size of the coverage. That is like saying AT&T shouldn't be considered because they as well are TDMA and GSM.
Note that digital technologies aren't tied to a particular frequency. CDMA, TDMA and GSM all support both the 800 and 1900 bands in the US -- it's a function of what spectrum carriers have. GSM also supports 900/1800 in Europe, and wCDMA uses 2100 in Europe.

I wasnt saying they are tied to a particular frequency, but what makes them different in those frequencies is the technology itself such as gsm/cdma. Hence why the phones are not compatible among certain companies. Exmpla using a gsm phone on cdma network.