[johncj]

I love the way BT advocates blame all the problems people have on bad implementations and user errors. The vast majority of the problems that I've seen described are not caused by software bugs and user errors. Instead, the problems arise from the fact that the standard has too many optional features and "profiles" to generate an understandable marketplace. Jo User can't understand why her Bluetooth devices won't talk to each other, not because she's stupid, but because the "profile" system is far too complex for her to grasp. This stuff will never be used effectively by non-geeks until the standard sheds the complexity inherent in it.

[johncj]

I love the way BT advocates blame all the problems people have on bad implementations and user errors. The vast majority of the problems that I've seen described are not caused by software bugs and user errors. Instead, the problems arise from the fact that the standard has too many optional features and "profiles" to generate an understandable marketplace. Jo User can't understand why her Bluetooth devices won't talk to each other, not because she's stupid, but because the "profile" system is far too complex for her to grasp. This stuff will never be used effectively by non-geeks until the standard sheds the complexity inherent in it.

[bdegroodt]

Originally Posted by Rudolf

Hmm, the followig Nokia phones all have BT capability...

Nokia 3650
Nokia 6310
Nokia 6310i
Nokia 6650
Nokia 7650
Nokia 8910
Nokia 8910i

Thanks Rudolf. I had seen sporadic offerings from Nokia, but didn't know they had actually introduced more than a couple to the market. Good to see.

Curious why the yet to be released 6100 isn't including BT.

[whydidnt]

Originally Posted by johncj

The vast majority of the problems that I've seen described are not caused by software bugs and user errors. Instead, the problems arise from the fact that the standard has too many optional features and "profiles" to generate an understandable marketplace. Jo User can't understand why her Bluetooth devices won't talk to each other, not because she's stupid, but because the "profile" system is far too complex for her to grasp. This stuff will never be used effectively by non-geeks until the standard sheds the complexity inherent in it.

I couldn't agree more. I consider myself a little "geeky", but it is a major hassle trying to sort out multiple bluetooth connections from the same device. Until we get true "plug & play" Bluetooth will not become prevelant.

How many consumers actually upgraded their PC's before Windows 95/98 and Plug and Play were brought to the market. Remember the hassle when you wanted to install a modem and had to cofigure the com port, DMA and the IRQ? That's basically what we have to go through today when setting up connections with Bluetooth. A majority of consumers don't think the hassle is worth it and ignore the technology all together.

Dan

[johnbrooks]

Originally Posted by johncj

I love the way BT advocates blame all the problems people have on bad implementations and user errors. The vast majority of the problems that I've seen described are not caused by software bugs and user errors. Instead, the problems arise from the fact that the standard has too many optional features and "profiles" to generate an understandable marketplace. Jo User can't understand why her Bluetooth devices won't talk to each other, not because she's stupid, but because the "profile" system is far too complex for her to grasp. This stuff will never be used effectively by non-geeks until the standard sheds the complexity inherent in it.

It's true that they should have standarized the Bluetooth Standard better so interoperability would be much better today. But a lot of the Bluetooth issues are also inherent with the Bluetooth Technology. It's much more complicated to link a device wirelessly with another device compared to a technology like WiFi which has a networkfunction. "BT advocates blame ALL the problems people have on bad implementations and user errors". Some maybe, but it's also true and these are the continuation of the various interpretations of the Bluetooth spec. There will always be issues with wireless technologies like Bluetooth imho. But some have more issues then others.

[bucho]

Originally Posted by johnbrooks

I love the way BT advocates blame all the problems people have on bad implementations and user errors. The vast majority of the problems that I've seen described are not caused by software bugs and user errors. Instead, the problems arise from the fact that the standard has too many optional features and "profiles" to generate an understandable marketplace. Jo User can't understand why her Bluetooth devices won't talk to each other, not because she's stupid, but because the "profile" system is far too complex for her to grasp. This stuff will never be used effectively by non-geeks until the standard sheds the complexity inherent in it.

I completely agree with this... I'm pretty technology savvy and still had some issues trying to get bluetooth devices to work together. It requires a lot of research and knowledge to achive even simple things. I love the concept of personal wireless space and I am every day user of Bluetooth (IR and 802.11 also), but it can get pretty confusing with the "profiles". I wish sometimes they made it just a link level standard (like IR or 802.11) and leave the application space (profiles) to the vendors to compete.

People just don't realize that not every Bluetooth adapter will support all profiles and will be capable of mutliple connections. Why can't I use my Jabra Freespeak with any BT PC card? Why can't I sync the T68i with Outlook and talk on the Jabra in the same time?

And another thing... It seems like the technology is still too expensive. Just looking and various prices of BT devices it seems that the cost of the tranciever itlself is still around $50 which is way to expensive for some simple use cases. The size and the power consumption may be right, but the price is still high. But I guess it ties with the previous problem... Unless BT becomes widely accepted, the prices will not drop.

[Gen-M]

Originally Posted by johncj

I love the way BT advocates blame all the problems people have on bad implementations and user errors. The vast majority of the problems that I've seen described are not caused by software bugs and user errors. Instead, the problems arise from the fact that the standard has too many optional features and "profiles" to generate an understandable marketplace. Jo User can't understand why her Bluetooth devices won't talk to each other, not because she's stupid, but because the "profile" system is far too complex for her to grasp. This stuff will never be used effectively by non-geeks until the standard sheds the complexity inherent in it.

I can't disagree, but the manufacturers (and their advertising/marketing groups) have to take responsibility for not trying to explain to Jo User that Profiles are important and device A requires that device B supports Profile Q. (Or even being explicit about what Profiles A supports.)

Most products just say "Bluetooth" as if it were a One Size Fits All technology standard. Jo User needs to understand that Size 8P will not fit a Size 16T device. :roll:

[Chris Hendriks]

I agree with Gen-M that the consumer needs to be informed about what profiles are supported.

Question: How do you do that without further confusing a consumer? For example, if you saw "supports headets" would you assume that this included stereo headsets?

How about a PDA that supports many profiles. The profile list alone would fill much of the box side panel without any description of the profiles.

Maybe manufacturers should list all detailed information on their web site when they launch a new product...

What do you think is the solution?

[hollis_f]

One thing that would help is if reviewers actually tried using the equipment they review instead of regurgitating the press release.

Two examples -

Try and find a review of the loox that mentions the fact that it won't ActiveSync over Bluetooth. When it first came out there were several reviews that gave the AS over BT ability as a major plus for the device.

I've read at least two reviews of the new Microsoft BT mouse/keyboard combo that imply that it will allow you to connect to virtually any other BT device.

It's obvious that these reviewers had never actually tried to do what they claimed the hardware was capable of.

[Chris Hendriks]

Hollis - very good point. I have a review on a BT device coming up and I plan to run it through it's paces - :wink:

[johncj]

Originally Posted by Chris Hendriks

I agree with Gen-M that the consumer needs to be informed about what profiles are supported.

Question: How do you do that without further confusing a consumer?

One of the problems with Bluetooth is that as a cable replacement, they've taken away the consumer's most powerful weapon for telling if two devices work together. You can no longer look at the cable and the plug and see if they look like they match. I think they need to come up with some simple icons for each profile that would be printed on the box and the device for every piece of Bluetooth enabled equipment. Then, you could take your phone into Best Buy, Fry's or CompUSA compare the pictures of the side of it with the ones on the box of the headset or PDA or whatever and know that they should work together.