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

[Jason Dunn]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=77&e=1&u=/mc/20041108/tc_mc/bluetoothgroupreleasesthreeyearroadmap

Mike posted about this news earlier, but I wanted to weigh in with my own opinion on the subject. Here's a quote from the Yahoo article:

"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."

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:

"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 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?

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.

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:

[Jason Dunn]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=77&e=1&u=/mc/20041108/tc_mc/bluetoothgroupreleasesthreeyearroadmap

Mike posted about this news earlier, but I wanted to weigh in with my own opinion on the subject. Here's a quote from the Yahoo article:

"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."

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:

"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 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?

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.

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: