Bluetooth Audio Splinters

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20031215S0021' target='_blank'>http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20031215S0021</a><br /><br /></div>"Computer and consumer engineers are taking separate paths to delivering audio over Bluetooth, raising the possibility of incompatible wireless MP3 players, headsets and speakers. The split comes as Bluetooth gains traction in its core market of cellular handsets and as it marshals forces for a next-generation spec that could deliver megabit data rates along with multimedia."<br /><br />I'm a fan of Bluetooth, but this is a problem. :| If you are wondering why the existing audio profiles aren't sufficient, it's because they can't handle 44KHz, 16-bit stereo <i>uncompressed</i> audio over the existing Bluetooth (723kbps) link. Uncompressed CD-quality audio needs 176kBps, or 1,408kbps of bandwidth, which clearly overwhelmes the theoretical maximum of existing BT implementations. Therefore, the solution is to either stream compressed audio, or expand the existing bandwidth. Both are rife with compatibility issues (choosing a compressed format and transport, for instance).<br /><br />You'd think the Bluetooth SIG would put more energy into making sure that only one such compressed audio format is adopted, but of course, if the companies that comprise the SIG itself disagree, they're powerless to do anything. The article is hopeful that the SIG members will reconcile their differences so that there's one standard. Let's hope so -- it'll be better for everyone that way.

[Duncan]

This is not an issue with the Bluetooth SIG. This is another example of Microsoft taking a different path to everyone else - doing their usual trick of taking an existing standard and adding propriertorial elements.

Note that all the other key players are going down the official route for BT audio - only MS and some 'un-named' people are considering the unwieldy, unworkable and fragmentary IP based route.

If BT does one day die (and, since it is very healthy at the moment, it will be murder) - it will be MS caught holding the knife.

[Janak Parekh]

OK, but Microsoft is one of the 8 "promoting" members of the BT SIG. Oh, and Nokia is another... and who can forget their headset profile fun?

--janak

[Duncan]

OK, but Microsoft is one of the 8 "promoting" members of the BT SIG. Oh, and Nokia is another... and who can forget their headset profile fun?

--janak

Neither of those change a thing. Nokia simply implemented an existing profile badly.

MS are part of the SIG because it would be absurd for them not to be. It doesn't change the fact that they are up to their usual tricks. Think how many other standards groups they have been a part of - and then introduced their own incompatible riff of the standard in question.

This time, however, they may have bitten off more than they can chew. They are very late to the BT game - possibly too late to be taken seriously by the other SIG members who are more likely to go down the standard route even if it means forgoing MS's anaemic OS BT implementation...