The Death of Bluetooth: Intel Moves to Ultrawideband

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/zd/20040219/tc_zd/119654">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/zd/20040219/tc_zd/119654</a><br /><br />"At the Intel Developer Forum on Wednesday Intel announced the company was giving up on the deadlocked Ultrawideband IEEE task group and going it alone with a derivative offering they are calling Wireless USB. This initiative, for them, does everything that Bluetooth does and, effectively means that for PCs Bluetooth is all but dead."<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20031016-bluetoothdead.gif" /> <br /><br />"Intel's history with Bluetooth, up until now, was solid. It was one of the major backers but the technology took years longer then expected to come to market. It's really never been accepted as a PC standard. Even Microsoft was slow to adopt it due to concerns about the standard. The company's Bluetooth keyboard and mouse were a disaster."<br /><br />I know bluetooth is still popular in cell phones in Europe, but they are hard (not impossible) to find here in the US. Very few PC peripherals have bluetooth. I suspect most consumer applications for bluetooth here involve PDAs to cell phones or BT routers. As WiFi is getting more common place, the bluetooth wireless networks are dying fast. With devices like the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=216893">Motorola MPx300</a> having built in cellular technology in a form factor that is <i>really</i> appealing, users like me that prefer the dual device solution will quickly move to the all-in-one PDA/Phone devices now that you don't have to have such a large device up to your ear. This article lists the same complaints that users have with bluetooth. It is too often troublesome to set up. If bluetooth is supposed to replace a cable, it should be as drop dead simple to work as a cable. Infrared is, bluetooth isn't. Yeah, I know, WiFi isn't as easy to set up, but people don't have that expectation of WiFi. They may not like it, but they anticipate fiddling with something to get a home network up and working. They do not expect to do that when getting an infrared mouse working with their PC and they don't expect it for bluetooth - mainly because bluetooth has billed itself as an easy to use cable replacement. Perhaps that is bluetooth's biggest failure - it wasn't marketed right.<br /><br />Well, Intel has moved on. If it fails in the simplicity of ultrawideband, it too will fail. Somehow though, I think Intel learned the lesson of bluetooth and won't make the same mistake.

[Christian]

How many more times is Bluetooth going to die? :lol:

Seriously though, UWB (or rather Wireless USB) sounds like a more reasonable standard. Hopefully Intel (and others) will avoid past mistakes this time around.

[Ed@Brighthand]

Don't toss out your Bluetooth-enabled handheld quite yet. According to an internetnews.com (http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/3314811) article:
The group plans to deliver the 1.0 version of the specification by the end of 2004, with the first products expected about a year later.
So we're talking about roughly two years before the first Wireless USB dongles hit the market.

[sundown]

This whole Bluetooth thing has been very interesting to see play out. I just saw a new Bluetooth GPS receiver for notebooks advertised the other day. I guess it's technically still dying...a slow death.

[denivan]

Long live bluetooth !

I mean come on, it just makes life easier. I hate headphones on a cell phone, but a BT headset is just so easy.

I have a GPS receiver wire connected to my iPaq in my car, this week I got the chance to test a TomTom BT GPS receiver, it's just so easy that I wish I could trade in mine ;-)

BT might be obscure (or difficult to understand) in the US, but it's here and it's great in Europe !

Btw, BT is easy when it's implemented in consumer products and truely acts as a cable replacement. Every time MS touches BT, they criple it (BT implementation in XP is not existend, making it difficult to set up BT activesync and their wireless keyboard debacle proves that Ed is the BT engineer at microsoft :lol: )

Ivan

[QYV]

...and before the rants begin, the title of the post is the title of the linked article. Yahoo News, not Ed, is calling Intel's move "the death of Bluetooth".

(not that Ed disagrees, I'm sure, but Duncan, et al can't blame him for this one.)

[Joff]

Funny, it reminds me of a company called Cypress who actually have a product called wirelessUSB (http://www.cypress.com/products/family.cfm?objectid=82367DDD-DFFF-413F-B5DC928E8B06EEFF&foid=82367DDD-DFFF-413F-B5DC928E8B06EEFF&familyName=WirelessUSB) It is definitely not based on UWB since it operates in the 2.4GHz frequency band. Which makes me wonder what the bandwidth is like, certainly less than UWB can offer.

[dwoloschuk]

Sigh...just when it was starting to win me over.

I was one of the Bluetooth naysayers until I realized what it was really all about, and now I'm starting becoming a fan of the technology.

Where I work, a University in Canada, wifi is heavily restricted and it makes using my iPAQ for things other than web surfing a bit of a hassle. Since Bluetooth is not regulated :wink: , I went out and got a USB dongle and I love it. (And I am really looking forward to the Bluetooth portable keyboards too.)

Ah well, like someone said earlier...Bluetooth has been pronounced dead more times than I can count. Who knows if this is really it...

David

[denivan]

After thinking this through, this is a good thing for bluetooth.

The BT forum can continu on focusing what BT is meant to be , just a low power cable replacement for consumer devices like phones, headsets, gps receivers, carkits, some digital camera's etc...

This wireless USB thingie can take the load off BT by offering what BT never was meant to do...

Think about it ;)

Ivan

[surur]

Bluetooth is picking up and improving. By the time UWB gets implemented, bluetooth will be in the place of USB, and UWB may be like firewire, very nice, but a niche product.

Currently I'm on my second PDA with bluetooth, and will not buy one without it. Having bought one bluetooth peripheral one does become locked in to the standard, but in a good way, as your device should be compatible and easily transferable to another PDA (unlike proprietary connectors for e.g. keyboards and GPS units)

Anyways, I have heard that UWB will be implemented in the form of a bluetooth stack and protocol. It would be the ultimate irony if UWB just turns into bluetooth 3.

Surur

[JvanEkris]

Eeeeh Ed,

I think the marketing babble of Intel was a little too fresh before you wrote this article. You declared bluetooth dead for about ten times, and still the number of units are rising by millions per year.

IMHO, Intel is a big one, but not big enough to stop Bluetooth on their own, using their own propriatary protocol. Big guys with a heavy marketshare like Motorolla, SonyEricsson, Sony, Dell, Philips and Dell are behind bluetooth. They have a huge market-share in electronics consumption. I do not think a "small fish" in this pond can change the world on its own without the help of these big players in end-products.

Jaap

[Chafic]

I have a sony laptop, a ipaq 5455, a Nokia 3650, and a parrot car kit. They are all bluetooth enables, I sync my ipaq to laptop, phone to laptop, phone to car kit. While the phone-parrot was surely easy to setup, the rest were a bit hard, so I agree with Ivan, may be this will take a load off bluetooth to allow BT to do what it was meant to do in the first place.

I am also in th emarket for another phone, and I will not consider one without bluetooth. OF course like all of you I am now drueling over the moto 220 or 300, I put my search on hold til then.

[MaximumPDA]

After thinking this through, this is a good thing for bluetooth.

The BT forum can continu on focusing what BT is meant to be , just a low power cable replacement for consumer devices like phones, headsets, gps receivers, carkits, some digital camera's etc...

This wireless USB thingie can take the load off BT by offering what BT never was meant to do...

Think about it ;)

Ivan

I agree, let the desktop peripherals have their UWB connection, that’s great for cameras, scanners, etc. Bluetooth can remain a cable replacement for mobility products. That’s probably how is should be.

A nice standard I think would be a standard with several power levels and each larger power level being compatible with the less powerful siblings. So a desktop PC could talk to a mobile phone, headsets, a video camera and networking. The mobile phone does have to burn unnecessary power for devices it would never use like the camera but can still use headsets and they are all cross compliable with in their power realm. So no matter what you bought you could still use it on the upstream devices. If any of that makes sense.

--bill

[Gremmie]

Ed's crusade to pronounce bluetooth dead...despite Intel's plan to use bluetooth utilization in the Centrino 2 processor.

[Duncan]

This is too easy...

1) Nowhere in that article is anyone from Intel quoted as saying that UWB will replace BT or that they are giving up on BT.

2) The article is essentially one man's interpretation of Intel's decision to leave the UWB group.

3) The author seems to have an agenda - strong company forging ahead = good, group standards = bad.

4) What 'facts' can we get from this article? Simple - unlike the BT group (largely united with one or two poor implementations) UWB is now split. Like DVD we can now expect UWB format wars - yeah, I can see how THAT will beat BT!

5) Is there anything in the article that gives the slightest indication that Intel is dropping BT support? No.

6) Is there any indication that Intel sees UWB as replacing BT? No.

7) Will UWB replace BT? Well - if it lives up to its hype then it could replace bT for short distance permanent connections (strangely enough - as a direct USB replacement). However -

a) I'd be shocked if it lives up to its hype (very few technologies do);
b) If it's Intel then we can expect them to mess up at the very least the first couple of iterations;
c) competing versions of UWB will cause customer confusion (a la recordable DVD);
d) By the time UWB comes to market we will be well on the way with BT 2.0 and the number and spread of BT devices will be greater still;
e) UWB will take a while to infiltrate the market - just as BT did;
and finally
f) do we really think that all those companies who have invested heavily in BT and WiFi will want to invest in a third wireless standard so readily while waiting for it to get market share? Hah!

8 ) UWB still has to pass through regulatory bodies in countless countries - some of which have already expressed reservations with the standard.

Still - nice try Ed! Not quite a clear cut, well argued article with quotes - but at least this time you found one that had a superficial resemblance to that kind of article...! :)

Personally - I'm looking forward to the weekly 'UWB Is Dead' headlines from Ed on Brain-Implant PC Thoughts in, oooh, 2007'ish...! ;)

[madbart]

Whilst BT might not have much takeup or devices within the good'ol USA you can rest assured that it is massive through Europe & the Asia Pacific region.

BT will survive .......or at least i hope it will! :rock on dude!:

[Server]

Bluetooth is too far ahead to be dead. At least for now it is....

http://news.com.com/i/ne/bb/2003/10/1024ipaqproduct_v.gif
Video on
BlueTooth/WiFi: (http://news.com.com/1604-2-907390-2.asx)

[Deslock]

Hot damn those slashdotters tore Rob Enderle a new one over his article. When I read the story there this morning, I figured it wouldn't take too long for Ed to post about it.

One thing that stuck out to me in the article was this:
Another problem with Bluetooth is how difficult it is to use. Consumers often found it impossible to get two Bluetooth devices to talk to each other.
The only time I've ever had a problem with Bluetooth communications was when I used it with a PPC. And it wasn't a problem so much as a clunky interface.

Wait a minute.... I just realized something. Ed Hansberry. Rob Enderle. 4 syllables, both end with the "e" sound, and consider this: Enderle. Are Ed and Rob really the same person?

[DubWireless]

it's that time again... it's Hansberry Bluetooth Rant time...

As WiFi is getting more common place, the Bluetooth wireless networks are dying fast.

the (media hyped) Bluetooth vs. WiFi debate ended a while back and everyone has left the building already...

With devices like the Motorola MPx300 having built in cellular technology in a form factor that is really appealing, users like me that prefer the dual device solution will quickly move to the all-in-one PDA/Phone devices

are you stating that Bluetooth is not going to be available in these types of devices...

If Bluetooth is supposed to replace a cable, it should be as drop dead simple to work as a cable. Infrared is, Bluetooth isn't.

sounds like someone who wasn't using early implementations of infrared - it could be just as problematic with bad interoperability / updating drivers / applying patches - etc...

Perhaps that is Bluetooth's biggest failure - it wasn't marketed right.

you can't forget all the uninformed "technology" journalists, writers and analysts who kicked up a whirlwind at it's inception but continue to this day reporting on it's complexity and demise

when there are all these people who use the technology just fine and get on with their lives...

Well, Intel has moved on... Somehow though, I think Intel leaned the lesson of Bluetooth and won't make the same mistake.

yeah? so how come they just announced plans to integrate Bluetooth and Wi-Fi together...

which has reports appearing that the new Centrino 2 will be offering both technologies: Intel to combine Wi-Fi, Bluetooth in Centrino 2 (http://www.theregister.com/content/69/35687.html)

"Speaking during his IDF keynote, Sean Maloney, Intel general manager of the company's Communications Group, revealed the chip maker is to offer a "specially designed low-power... integrated Bluetooth/Wi-Fi device".

---

well I'll kick back - safe in the knowledge it won't be too long before the next Hansberry Bluetooth Rant - different Bat time, same Bat channel ;)

or should that be: Hansberry Bluetooth Rant the Never Ending Story...

.

[Duncan]

or should that be: Hansberry Bluetooth Rant the Never Ending Story...

My theory? Ed's ancestors a thousand years ago were heathens living in Norway and their grudge against King Harald Bluetooth has been passed from father to son to this day (http://www.fortidensjelling.dk/jellinge5.htm). If only the technology had been called something else such as 'Smith'...

Anyone got a better theory...? :lol:

[Jason Dunn]

Anyone got a better theory...? :lol:

How about Bluetooth is an erratic, often poorly implemented technology that is a PITA to use? :mrgreen:

[Duncan]

Anyone got a better theory...? :lol:

How about Bluetooth is an erratic, often poorly implemented technology that is a PITA to use? :mrgreen:

C'mon Jason - at least my theory was credible....! 8)

[DubWireless]

How about Bluetooth is an erratic, often poorly implemented technology that is a PITA to use? :mrgreen:

have you not found a lot of technology is like that at the start though? i have, but now experience a stable Bluetooth set-up using some great implementations from several vendors

of course everyone is entitled to their rants - and they can be enjoyable to read and debate :D

it would be great if they were also tempered with as many helpful raves and articles too, therefore helping people by demonstrating working solutions, practical uses, and what good implementations are available

.

[acronym]

ed's personal bluetooth bashing crusade continues.

man, if I was that inept at technology, I think I'd keep it to myself.
microsoft mvp &lt;eyeroll>

[Yoonoo]

USB was introduced many years ago and yet it's been able to accomodate all types of devices that were invented throughout these years. I think Bluetooth promised a lot, but sloppy implementation, unreliability and the confusion about what devices support what profiles might lead to its demise.

A wireless version of USB can be much more scalable and therefore might have better success.

[Janak Parekh]

man, if I was that inept at technology, I think I'd keep it to myself.
microsoft mvp &lt;eyeroll>
Please, keep the personal comments to yourself. You're welcome to disagree with Ed, but it's his opinion. It so turns out that he has a Nokia 3650 with which he uses Bluetooth frequently, so he has a pretty good handle on the technology. I disagree with him on Bluetooth, but we respect each other's opinions.

And a warning to everyone else: personal attacks will not be tolerated on this thread.

--janak

[madbart]

I think that problrm lies the sloppyness of bluetooth implementation & not the standard.

You only have to look as recent annoucements of Bluetooth phone hacking tools 'spreading quickly'.

"According to Rowe, the problem lies in how manufacturers implemented the object exchange (OBEX) protocol"

http://www.silicon.com/networks/mobile/0,39024665,39118440,00.htm

[madbart]

man, if I was that inept at technology, I think I'd keep it to myself.
microsoft mvp &lt;eyeroll>
Please, keep the personal comments to yourself. You're welcome to disagree with Ed, but it's his opinion. It so turns out that he has a Nokia 3650 with which he uses Bluetooth frequently, so he has a pretty good handle on the technology. I disagree with him on Bluetooth, but we respect each other's opinions.

And a warning to everyone else: personal attacks will not be tolerated on this thread.

--janak

No wonder Ed dislikes BT! Nokia would have to have the worst implementation of BT of any handset manufacturers. You can't even use the Jabra BT200 with it as Nokia in there infinate wisdoms don't use the same BT profiles as everyone else. They developed their own!

Jabra manufacture a Freespeak especially for this phone.

[Janak Parekh]

I think that problrm lies the sloppyness of bluetooth implementation & not the standard.
Agreed 100%. My message has always been that the SIG has done a lousy job in its certification process. If they were more stringent, we wouldn't have any of these complaints today.

No wonder Ed dislikes BT! Nokia would have to have the worst implementation of BT of any handset manufacturers.
Unfortunately, Nokia is one of the most prevalent manufacturers of cell phones. For a while, the only BT phone you could get from T-Mo that had decent reception is the 3650. In the consumer's eyes, if the 3650 has lousy BT, they'll be likely to blame it on BT, something they don't know, as opposed to Nokia -- a manufacturer that has a high reputation, whether it's deserved or not. To some extent, I think that's what both Ed and Jason dislike about Bluetooth.

--janak

[Steven Cedrone]

Implementation is the problem, not the standard itself. Just from my experience, I bought two Bluetooth dongles, the first was a fight to the death! I brought it back. The second, I had Bluetooth working in minutes.

The thing that I keep going back to is this: if Bluetooth is to be the cable replacement technology, it must be just as easy to use as a cable! Plug it in, it should work (O.K., you may have to configure one or two things, but that's it). IMHO, the Bluetooth SIG really needs to push tighter standards when it comes to manufacturers being able to use the Bluetooth logo. There are many logo'd products out there that really hurt the reputation of Bluetooth...

Just my .02

Steve

[Ed Hansberry]

No wonder Ed dislikes BT! Nokia would have to have the worst implementation of BT of any handset manufacturers.
My T68 (all three of them :roll:) were worse. Then there was that Anycom BT card.... my blood pressure still rises at the thought of that week. :evil:

[Ed Hansberry]

Implementation is the problem, not the standard itself. Just from my experience, I bought two Bluetooth dongles, the first was a fight to the death! I brought it back. The second, I had Bluetooth working in minutes.

You quys are getting inte semantics now. If the standard allows vendors to do a sucky implementation and still get the logo, the standard is part of the problem.

ergo... bluetooth sucks. ;-)

[Kacey Green]

How many more times is Bluetooth going to die? :lol:


(rant) I have visited this site everyday since a month or two before I signed up and frankly I don't post much but I'm getting sick and tired of ed predicting bluthoooth's death :really mad: (/rant)

All that said I find this to be a great place, ED used to be one of my favorite people to watch but recent ly his front page postings (COUGH)flamebate(/COUGH) have run counter to the ED I've come to know.

No hard feelings ed just speaking my mind. I don't dislike you just some of your reacent postings and weak arguments.


BTW I'm looking for a keyboard that supports the ipaq 22xx, is wirless, supports dvorak, and won't break the bank could someone please post a link?

[Steven Cedrone]

You quys are getting inte semantics now. If the standard allows vendors to do a sucky implementation and still get the logo, the standard is part of the problem.

The SIG let's them get the logo. I really think that if the standard was followed, there wouldn't be sucky implementations and a heck of alot less vendors with the logo. But the SIG really needs to clamp down on vendors, and they need to do it now!

ergo... bluetooth sucks. ;-)

Well, the jury is still out on that one! :wink: That's like saying: "Budweiser sucks, Budweiser is beer, therefore beer sucks!"...

Gotta go, need another beer! :wink:

Steve

[dma1965]

I absolutely LOVE Bluetooth. Yes, it does nearly take an MIT degree to set it up, but once set up WITH GOOD HARDWARE (Socket, iPaq) it is ROCK SOLID. My T616 is a dream to use with both my Laptop with the Socket bluetooth card and my iPaq 4155. My iPaq Bluetooth GPS is awesome, and my Zoom bluetooth landline modem rocks! I too had a dreadful experience with an Ambicom card, and also with an hp bluetooth printer adapter, and must say when it sucks it sucks hard. I wish Windows devices and OS implementations of bluetooth were as easy as they are on a Mac. My boss has a Mac with built in bluetooth, and it never takes him more than about a minute to connect to and work with any bluetooth device. It is truly mindboggling how simple it is with a Mac. The technology is great, the implementation just plain sucks. I am glad I am geeky enough to get it working for me. :idea: :rock on dude!:

[DubWireless]

the standard is part of the problem. ergo... bluetooth sucks. ;-)

when Windows XP Service Pack 2 comes out hopefully you will find its native Bluetooth support easier to deal with - rather than trying to deal with 3rd party implementations...

the multi-vendor implementations and different versions of those implementations suck (on Windows) - but some work great and currently prove very successful for people - a bit of research and asking questions before jumping in would be a better route to take (as with most technologies)

.

[MarcTGFG]

It is always funny to read PPCT with its obsession about the viability and future of bluetooth. ;-)

Must be a specifically american view, since bluetooth in the rest of the world is really taking off, with more and more phones incorporating it and low cost USB bluetooth adapters being very cheap and getting advertised a lot.

Maybe america had 802-11b implemented earlier so many people didnt see any need for bluetooth anymore. But they are really for different purposes as is UWB, which also lies in a somewhat distant future.

[Duncan]

My T68 (all three of them :roll:) were worse. Then there was that Anycom BT card.... my blood pressure still rises at the thought of that week. :evil:

Now this is where Ed just completely foxes me! The T68 BT implementation is simple, easy and foolproof! Before I knew anything about BT I connected an iPAQ 3970 to a T68 and an R520m via BT and was astonished by how straightforward and stable it was. I wish I could understand how Ed has difficulties 'cos I know of many who started on the BT road after experiencing the T68...!

Perhaps the T68s know how much you seem to want BT to die and are misbehaving out of spite...? :lol:

In a previous 'Ed rants about Bluetooth thread' I confidently predicted that UWB would suffer from competing standards and splits. I seem to be being proved right. People forget how much effort unified standards such as 802.11b and Bluetooth take to achieve - all those competing companies to bring together - it is inevitable that some will forge their own non-standard implementations anyway (especially those such as Microsoft and Sony who have a habit of blindly attempting to go their own way) - but the miracle is that most have stuck to the plan (or improved over time) and even MS are likely to to fall in line.

UWB has fallen at the first hurdle. How long before we see yet another split in that camp? I confidently predict we will see UWB fail not because of its technological merits but because it will not be a unified standard.

Wirless USB, low powered WiFi, UWB - in every case we will see competing standards and splits that will cause manufacturers to again and again see the merits of Bluetooth as an already agreed standard with the groundwork already laid.

I'm not saying this because I have a gift for prophecy, or because I'm a doom and gloom merchant, I'm saying it because I've been paying attention to recent technology developments and the way big tech companies have been behaving.

Bluetooth isn't perfect, not every implemention is as it should be, it needs work - but it is here, it is entrenched, it is growing, it is a recognised standard and it is improving. If I were an American interested in wireless tech I wouldn't be predicting the death of BT - I would be pushing to see it adopted in the US rather than a competing standard lest low-powered ad hoc wireless cable replacement become like mobile phones and digital radio - areas where the US has gone down its own path and ended up years behind the rest of the world by following different, incompatible standards...

[JvanEkris]

Let's face it, certification is a difficult process (i worked at a certification company, so i know what i'm talking about). When all people agree on the standard, it is possible that implementations differ. A good certification-process can filter things out, but only if the standard is detailed enough to let you do that. IMHO, bluetooth failed in the latest point: it is impossible to reject a product on the bluetooth standard.

But then the UWB case. If you can't even agree on the standard, the rest is useless. You indeed get wars between camps (like DVD). However, Intel has no end-products to speak of, so they have to convince producers of end-products to buy their implementation of UWB, which does not have to work with the rest of the world. This is difficult, not to say impossible.

Jaap

[daS]

You quys are getting inte semantics now. If the standard allows vendors to do a sucky implementation and still get the logo, the standard is part of the problem.

ergo... bluetooth sucks. ;-)

Ergo... All technology sucks! I have good and bad Wi-Fi cards - both with logos, I have good and bad USB devices (why does my Smartphone sometimes end up as an "unknown device" to my USB host PC?) I have good and bad Windows applications (all with the Microsoft Windows logo.) I have good and bad IrDA devices (why does my Pocket PC sometimes refuse to send contacts to a Sony PDA - or even another Pocket PC?) I have a PC Card that started causing my Windows XP laptop to "Blue Screen" as soon as the driver loads. (Something that just started happening after using the card fine for weeks, and which I managed to make go away by removing some helper app from the start up.)

All these things have the logos that indicate they meet standards. Therefore, by the "Ed Logo Standard" they all receive the "Certified Standards that Suck" logo. :wink:

I've asked you many times in many threads, and I'll ask again here: Why do you hold Bluetooth to a higher standard than any of these other (so called) standards?

Can you at least admit that, based on the poll results here, that you are vastly out numbered in your opinion?

As for this specific arguement... We've discussed Wireless USB before. USB only "seems" to be plug-and-play due to the thousands of drivers pre-loaded in Windows (taking much more room than is practial on a Pocket PC) and because you often have to load a driver disk before you connect a new USB device. (And pitty the person that doesn't follow that rule and then tries to fix it later after the host PC thinks it knows what the USB device was and then refuses to work when you load the driver CD after first plugging in the device for the first time.)

Also, what in the world would make you think that any new technology such as UWB will live up to the early hype? Have you ever seen that to be true?

[Server]

I think that problrm lies the sloppyness of bluetooth implementation & not the standard.
You only have to look as recent annoucements of Bluetooth phone hacking tools 'spreading quickly'....


My Take:

I like BT even if implementation was a bit 'sloppy'
Personally, I think it would be much better to just have
one unified multibanded wireless standard and
less competeing newer wireless standards that keep cropping up
(ie WirelessUSB) but thats just wishful thinking on my part.
I also think that with every new wireless standard
that is introduced and ratified there will always be the
potential for more security problems (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37062) for your
everyday user.

[shawnc]

I want to make two quick points. One, it is obvious Ed is not a BT fan and he posts articles that tend to support that position. SO WHAT! Agree or disagee, makes no never mind to me (heck that is what this site is all about). But lay off of the personal attacks. And not just the direct ones. Some of you folks need to get a hold of your emotions. If you can't disagree without being personal, grow up, get a life, do something. Their are some of us who like to follow these threads and hate it when ONLY A CHOICE FEW folks insist on getting personal and forcing the Mod's to lock the thread. I've never seen Ed initiate the personal attacks. Only respond when attacked.

Secondly, I will admit I don't know enough about the technology to offer an intelligent opinion one way or the other. But for you "techies" ask yourself one basic question - how many non IS people do you know that use BT? I don't know ANY. NOT ONE PERSON. I know quite a few folks (myself included) who use wifi, but nobody who uses BT. My point is that the techies can rave all they want about the benefits of BT, but until we get the masses to use it, it will remain a niche product until something comes along to replace it. And until it is as simple as plugging in a cable, the masses won't use it. I think we lose sight of the fact that most people use their home PC for Internet access. Wifi gets you there very easily. BT doesn't.

[denivan]

To shawnc,

1) Telling someone to grow up and get a life is a personal insult in itself
2) What are 'indirect' personal attacks ? Example ?
3) When you see the Poll results and know the history of how these 'BT sux and will die'-threads, then I guess posting another one can be regarded as flame-bait. (which does not give the right to flame imo, but one can expect it to happen).
4) Depends on what you call techie, BT headsets are sold by hundreds/day for non-techie people to use them. There are other non-techie BT solutions, and this is where BT just shines imo. I agree that BT on the pc can be better (blame Microsoft) and that BT on some pocketpc's can be better (blame the OEM's, whoever invented 'plugfree' at fujitsu-siemens should be punished severly ;)). Imo, WiFi is just as difficult to set up as BT, the few consumer products that integrate WiFi (tv systems) are a real b*tch to set up most of the times, at least the consumer products that I've seen and integrate BT are a piece of cake.

Kind regards,

Ivan

[QYV]

As an American, I am curious about statements indicating Bluetooth is taking off elsewhere, particularly in Europe. I happily use a T68i with my iPAQ and it works great, but I know exactly one other person who even knows what Bluetooth means, and he works at ATT Wireless! In contrast, I know many people who have set up their own Wi-Fi networks at home, even a year or two ago.

My point is, I live in the suburbs of a large US city and Bluetooth is unknown to my moderately-sized circle of friends except to the geekiest of the geeks, while Wi-Fi has even made an appearance on (relatively) mainstream television here! I am very interested if this is different in Europe or Asia. Is Bluetooth known by the "man/woman/child on the street"? Do a large (25% or more) proportion of non-geek-types use Bluetooth? If so, for what - just headsets? Sync phones with PCs?

[Duncan]

Is Bluetooth known by the "man/woman/child on the street"?

Yes and no.

In Ipswich, the large town where I live, there are around 9 mobile phone shops. Every single one of them has a dedicated Bluetooth display in a prime location. Every single one of them has Blueooth stuff prominently displayed in their windows.

A recent law passed, making it entirely illegal to use mobile phones while driving without a hands-free kit, has led to a major surge in Bluetooth car kits.

It is increasingly hard to find a mobile phone, except really basic models, that doesn't have Bluetooth (bear in mind that you can get a Bluetooth enabled phone for free on almost every contract!).

Magazines dedicated to mobile phones sell well - and they all cover Bluetooth frequently - phones lose points for not having it. Magazines dedicated to PCs have frequent Bluetooth round-ups and PDAs/laptops are praised for including Blueooth. Gadget mags (of which there are two major sellers) make a big thing of Bluetooth also.

The Nokia n-Gage is advertised regularly on TV with the Bluetooth multi-layer features as the central selling point (aprat from the games).

Late last year Bluetooth mobile headsets outsold regular headsets by nearly double.

In Dixons - our equivalent to CompUSA (roughly) - it is easy to see Bluetooth all over - and their catalogues always have a 'Bluetooth and why it is good to have' section (alongside the WiFi).

So - mobile phone users (particularly the young - teens to late twenties) know about and want Bluetooth (kids I teach are very aware of it and want it if they don't already have it). New laptop/PC users learn about it and why it is good to have. Car drivers know about it and want it. PDA buyers are very aware of it and look for it. Standing in a major railway station (Liverpool Street in London is an excellent example) it is easy to see that large numbers of business men and city types are jabbering away on Bluetooth headsets.

In short - just about anyone who has any regular connection to IT knows about Bluetooth and its uses - but your typical non-PC/mobile phone users don't know what it is.

I have to say - I've met people who use Bluetooth with only the vaguest notion of 'what' they are using or how it works (they just use it! - which undercuts one of Ed's major planks...!). (I asked a colleague once about the Bluetooth headset he had been using - turned out to be the very sexy Bluespoon! - and he looked at me all puzzled and asked: 'Blue-what?!'

I would argue that WiFi has been less well known and less prevalent - though that is rapidly changing.

Bluetooth has three major inroads into the UK population:

1) Bluetooth headsets. Mobiles are VERY common and headsets increasingly used.

2) Handsfree car kits. Selling very well.

3) PDAs - major selling point.

Coming up on the outside - Bluetooth mice/keyboards (my local PC World sold out at Christmas of both Logitech and MS versions); Bluetooth PS2/XBox console pads - definitely one to watch.

Does that help?

[Duncan]

I want to make two quick points. One, it is obvious Ed is not a BT fan and he posts articles that tend to support that position. SO WHAT! Agree or disagee, makes no never mind to me (heck that is what this site is all about). But lay off of the personal attacks. And not just the direct ones. Some of you folks need to get a hold of your emotions. If you can't disagree without being personal, grow up, get a life, do something.

Shawn - the problem that many of us have is that Ed attacks Bluetooth with tedious regularity and on the flimsiest of pretences. This is an opinion site and it works both ways. If Ed can repeatedly make the same kind of post he can also expect the same kind of response. As to personal attacks - I'm not sure what you are seeing? I know I have personally tackled Ed for his bias, lack of logic and poor offering of evidence - but that has always been in the context of pointing out that this is not what I have obseved to be the norm. Generally I have a lot of respect for Ed and I think he is more than big enough to cope with the fact that I and others think he is badly wrong on this issue. That's the things with making contoversial points - the replies you get are inevitably going to be frank! I can't say I've seen any actually personal attacks on Ed (as opposed to his views) that haven't been shot down pretty quickly by Steve!

Secondly, I will admit I don't know enough about the technology to offer an intelligent opinion one way or the other.

But you are going to anyway? :lol:

But for you "techies" ask yourself one basic question - how many non IS people do you know that use BT? I don't know ANY. NOT ONE PERSON. I know quite a few folks (myself included) who use wifi, but nobody who uses BT. My point is that the techies can rave all they want about the benefits of BT, but until we get the masses to use it, it will remain a niche product until something comes along to replace it. And until it is as simple as plugging in a cable, the masses won't use it. I think we lose sight of the fact that most people use their home PC for Internet access. Wifi gets you there very easily. BT doesn't.

... and you live where? You refer to the masses but you do so in a very localised sense. There ARE 6.5 billion people in the world - that makes your observation very limited in scope. If you lived in Sinagpore, Korea, parts of Africa, The Middle East, Europe etc. then accept that your observation might be very different....

[shawnc]

To shawnc,

1) Telling someone to grow up and get a life is a personal insult in itself Ivan

Agreed. My frustration got the better of me.


2) What are 'indirect' personal attacks ? Example ?

Not gonna happen. Read the thread, shouldn't be that hard to figure out.



3) When you see the Poll results and know the history of how these 'BT sux and will die'-threads, then I guess posting another one can be regarded as flame-bait. (which does not give the right to flame imo, but one can expect it to happen).

Thats a personal opinion that I simply don't agree with. There is one owner for this site and he gets the right to dictate what is not acceptable material. Anything posted, ESPECIALLY something posted by those who work for the site, SHOULD NEVER SUBJECT THEM TO PERSONAL ATTACKS. NEVER! BTW, maybe I didn't make it clear, but I was not simply referring to this thread. Whenver Ed posts BT-related information, the flames start. That's what I was referring to when I said grow up. I like these threads, but lately I have seen a pattern. They get ugly (Ed never starts the ugliness BTW) and the Mods have to lock them. Well some of us out here don't want to see that because we count of these types of threads for needed information regarding BT. I assume we are adults here and should have better control over our emotions and be able to avoid personal attacks simply because we disagree with the message.


4) Depends on what you call techie,

Good point. As an accountant, I tend to think of anyone with an IT/IS background as a "techie" (and just for clarification, when I say techie, I mean it as a compliment, not a slur). And as for the point on the wifi setup, maybe I just got lucky. I followed the instructions and had mine up and running in less than 1 hour. A few months later I integrated my Ipaq into the mix in less than 1/2 hour. As a "non-techie" anything more difficult than that would have lost me. The one venture I attempted into the pool of BT was frustrating beyond description. Days of effort, no results. Could have been my lack of knowledge which is one of the reasons I read these threads with such interest.

But as I indicated, I'm simply not knowledgable enough about BT to pass judgement on it. The main point I was attempting to make was that these anti-BT threads have SOME basis of fact by a large segment of the computer using population. To simply dismiss them as flame-bait and think that entitles folks to attack the messenger personally is not right.

[shawnc]

[quote]Secondly, I will admit I don't know enough about the technology to offer an intelligent opinion one way or the other.

But you are going to anyway? :lol:[quote]

:rofl: OK, I'll take that one.

[freitasm]

I know these "BT is dead" posts are here to stir up, so here it goes... Directly from the Press Release on Intel:

"The UWB radio layer and the convergence layer serve as the underlying transport mechanism for different applications that would operate on top of the single radio, such as wireless universal serial bus (USB), IEEE 1394, the next generation of Bluetooth* and Universal Plug and Play."

Is just me or Ed missed the "transport mechanism" part?

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040218net.htm

[JvanEkris]

As an American, I am curious about statements indicating Bluetooth is taking off elsewhere, particularly in Europe. ILet me put it this way. SonyEricsson has made a hit with the T610. On birthdays i saw two relatives (completely non-technical people) sending pictures and sounds through Bluetooth, without any help of me. They did not understand what they did on a technical level, but they just sent the data. The T610 is in the BeNeLux (Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg) the number one selling phone right now. Most people use bluetooth as easy as IrDa.......

Jaap

[beq]

"The UWB radio layer and the convergence layer serve as the underlying transport mechanism for different applications that would operate on top of the single radio, such as wireless universal serial bus (USB), IEEE 1394, the next generation of Bluetooth* and Universal Plug and Play."

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040218net.htm
Interesting... I recall there was also talk of "wireless 1394" in development for HDTV consumer electronics using various high-bandwidth wireless methods that 1394 can independently stack on top of... I think it's part of something called HAVi or other, don't recall...

A search turned up this official Wireless 1394 (http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2003Press/december/12.08.a.htm) (with high-bandwidth UWB PHY coming), not sure if it evolved from the development I mentioned above...

Here's one (http://www.magisnetworks.com/news/pr_20030106.asp) that references HAVi...

[JoeDawg]

Thankfully bluetooth is big in Europe and I do not believe it will die. Manufacturers will continue to develop bluetooth devices for the European market and hopefully we will get a trickle of devices in the US.

I use a IPAQ 5555 and have Jabra Bluetooth headset for non-bluetooth phones for use with my V60, all I need is a bluetooth cell phone for Verizon.

I have been with Verizon for several years and have been petitioning Verizon to cancel the remainder of my contract due to lack of bluetooth product availbility. The Motorola V710 is currently being tested by Verizon. Yahoo! Availability expected later this year. See PhoneScoop.com.

Later

[alanjrobertson]

I have happily used my Tungsten T and SE T68i for Bluetooth for the past couple of years. I've now moved on to a T3 and a SE T630 (http://www.sonyericsson.com/t630) - both offering very nice, easy-to-use BT implementations.

I have the T3 on a belt-clip at work, set to connect (over GPRS) to check for my e-mail every 2 hours during the workday. The T630 is on silent in my pocket.

The T630 has a built-in camera - not exactly amazing quality, but fun nonetheless. Using Float Mobile (http://fma.xinium.com/) I'm able to connect to my T630 and transfer these photos easily to my PC (I've got a TDK USB BT adapter). Float also let's me send SMSs from my PC, and re-direct the audio from my voice calls to my PC speakers.

Setup of these items was really pretty straightforward, in particular the T3 to T630 - the phone link on the T3 made it very easy to follow.

I know a lot of folks with Bluetooth headsets - many of whom aren't even aware that it's BT they're using. As Duncan mentioned earlier, the vast majority of mobiles currently availble in the UK (free on 1 yr contract) offer Bluetooth.

WiFi on the other hand - I'd still say it's mainly the more geeky folks who have a home WiFi setup (and a lot of folks haven't even heard of it). With more laptops coming with it built-in I think it's on the rise.

Cheers

Alan

[Iron_Trigger]

Just wanted to point out to ShawnC that here in the Philippines, a lot of non IS/IT people with bluetooth phones know how to use it. Sure there may be a lot of things that are complex to do with bluetooth (like connecting a PDA to a GPRS enabled phone) but VCard/image file transfers/bluetooth chat are quite simple enough for the average user. If 3rd world users can use it, I don't see the reason why people from the States couldn't.

As for Ed's experience with T68's, Sony Ericsson's T68i (firmware upgraded T68) implementation is one of the easiest to use so I'm really stumped that he had a harded time with it than with a N3650. Maybe he didn't have his T68 upgraded or something. Now I know some people might say that they shouldn't have to have their stuff upgraded just so they can have it work but nothing is perfect. This is especially with new technology. But the FACT remains that Bluetooth shipments have grown tremendously and is being widely used all over the world (except maybe in the States). To say that it is dying would be nothing short of being blatantly contradictory. To say that it will die... well there is a chance that it will. Almost nothing is forever anyways ('cept maybe for debt and taxes). Who would have predicted that serial cables will die 5 or 6 years ago but now, it's practically dead. But guys (BT haters), for the meantime, please stop PREDICTING bluetooth's death because you're beginning to sound like Professor Trelawney. We are well aware that you hate BT and you are entitled to it but the whole world does not revolve around your opinions and BT will not die simple because you hate it. There are millions who use it and millions who love it.