Bluetooth Bandwidth Triples - But Does It Get Any Easier to Use?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=77&e=1&u=/mc/20041108/tc_mc/bluetoothgroupreleasesthreeyearroadmap' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...hreeyearroadmap</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) Monday is releasing a three-year road map for Bluetooth short-range wireless technology that includes a tripling of bandwidth and the ability to multicast signals to seven other users. Even as the road map is released, Bluetooth backers are defending the technology against future alternatives such as Ultrawideband (UWB), and point out that the use of Bluetooth is growing."</i><br /><br />Tripling the bandwidth and multicasting? Cool. But why don't I read anything in here about changing the way Bluetooth is implemented?<!> Why don't they have something about moving away from serial port emulation, configuring COM ports, and all the other insane steps you sometimes need to take in order to get Bluetooth to work? People talk about the "success" of Bluetooth based on the number of devices out there that have it, but market penetration doesn't mean people are actually using it. I thought this quote was particularly telling:<br /><br /><i>"And speaking of infrared, he noted that there are "millions of infrared devices" in the market that are not used. "Having the technology doesn't mean it is appreciated," he said."</i><br /><br />I was at a Handango developers conference in 2003 and the Symbian representative was bragging about how there would be 10 million Series 60-based phones in the market by the end of 2003. At my prompting, one of the developers asked "How many of those 10 million devices have third party software installed?". The Symbian rep replied with a blank stare. Is a "smartphone" really a "smartphone" if the user uses it in exactly the same manner as their regular phone?<br /><br />I see Bluetooth the same way - especially in Europe, phones that come with Bluetooth are very common, as are laptops. But if the person isn't using it, can you really consider that a success of the technology? I was helping someone out lately with a laptop problem, and it was a Compaq unit from Germany that had Bluetooth built in - but the owner didn't realize that he even had Bluetooth. Why not? He tried to get it to work once but found the process so confusing he assumed he didn't have it because it simply wouldn't work.<br /><br />Still, as much as Bluetooth frustrates me, when it does work, man it's cool! I connected up my C500 Smartphone to my Fujitsu P5010D laptop (using a Bluetooth USB dongle) and was able to check email using GPRS. A solution like that is perfect for when I don't have WiFi access. Now that's a technology success story! :mrgreen:

[ricksfiona]

Yeah, Bluetooth needs to be implemented MUCH easier. Only geeks and wannabe geeks really care and take the time to deal with it.

[Sven Johannsen]

[Why don't they have something about moving away from serial port emulation, configuring COM ports, and all the other insane steps you sometimes need to take in order to get Bluetooth to work?

Not sure it's fair to lay that on BT's doorstep. The issue in my mind is the serial port by itself. Doesn't matter if that is a BT virtual serial port, a hardware Comm 1 or Comm 2, or a Serial to USB converter. You still need to tell the application, whether that is AS or a mapping program, what serial port to look at for data. The BT serial port comes up just fine, in my experience. It's getting something to talk to that serial port that may be tricky.

What I think is missing is a USB profile. If this is a cable replacement, I have lots of USB cables that could stand replacing. I don't need an HID profile, I need a USB profile and if what is at the end of that wireless lnk is a keyboard, or mouse, it looks like a USB keyboard or mouse. If it's a printer it looks like a USB printer. USB scanner, headset/microphone, camera, etc.

In my simple mind a cable replacement needs four profiles, serial, USB, Cat 5, Audio (mic/headphone jacks), the host reacts to BT IO as one of those physical connections. Maybe you could add firewire to that, but that becomes a bandwidth issue at the moment, as would USB 2 I would think.

[AZMark]

Can ya say "Bluetooth Headset", "Bluetooth Carkit"

sure ya can.

so can millions of europeans.

[jonathanchoo]

What! Bluetooth is easy to use atleast on many other devices.

Granted, the Pocket PC implementation is crippled but that is Microsoft's problem. Even the WiFi implementation on my iPAQ is not what I call easy.

However on PalmOS and many mobile phones its dead easy. Even my mum who does not know how to turn on a PC can use it on her mobile phone.

[Deslock]

BT has been easy-to-setup and trouble-free on my son's iMac, my wife's iBook, my cell-phone, and my old Palm T3.

On my PPC, it's a little more complicated and very clunky (but I haven't had any significant issues with it). I've never used BT with Windows 2k/XP... is it problematic?

[Deslock]

Hmmm... I just noticed that this topic is several hours old, but they're only 5 replies. Where's Ed H's sensationalistic BT-RIP graphic when you need it?

[sponge]

However on PalmOS and many mobile phones its dead easy. Even my mum who does not know how to turn on a PC can use it on her mobile phone.

It's so easy my Zodiac doesn't have ANY profiles built in unless I download/buy 3rd party apps!

[jonathanchoo]

It's so easy my Zodiac doesn't have ANY profiles built in unless I download/buy 3rd party apps!

That proves my assumption that the Zodiac is a crippled product!

Okay, I revise my standing to palmOne PDAs (and some Sony Clie) and not PalmOS in general.

[sponge]

Ah, didn't know that. Doesn't seem to be crippled in any other way.

[rbrome]

The protocol is sound. The problem is certain implementations. As others have noted, Bluetooth works well and is quite easy on many platforms and devices. Then there's Windows and Windows Mobile... :roll:

Certainly the whole issue of COM ports is unique to Windows. You can't blame that on Bluetooth. And Bluetooth does try to move away from serial port emulation, with all the specific profiles it supports. Serial is only one of many profiles, and it's sort of the generic one for applications that don't conform to a standard BT profile.

[kosmos]

Good point - often the hype of a technology is a marketing ploy - how many people actually make use of it is another story.

I've had mixed luck with a HP 2210 and various cell phones linked up over Bluetooth, I gave up on the Sony T610 now the Nokio 6230 works better but still I seem to hit the limt of this technology, like if I have the Smart GSM app open and linked to the cell phone, I have to quit out the app to use the Internet va GPRS, I have to switch off the ppc before my XP PC will be able to browse the phone to upload pics etc. I can't seem to get around these problems because Bluetooth seems to point to point, one link at a time. It's nowhere near a "personal area network" one can dream about, however maybe this latest standard addresses this?