11-19-2002, 12:02 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
What I Don't Like About BlueTooth
Russ Smith from Pocketnow.com has written a very thought-provoking article on Bluetooth. This isn't the usual "Bluetooth Sucks" or "Bluetooth Rules" rhetoric we sometimes see - Russ approaches it from a deeply technical level, and this isn't something I had thought about previously. Make me wonder if Bluetooth has what it takes for a long life.
"As you've no doubt read elsewhere, Microsoft has decided to embrace the BlueTooth technology and support it on an operating system level in a revision to Windows XP. That's good news from the standpoint that it will help to solve some of the conflicting implementation problems. Unfortunately, BlueTooth has a number of problems, inherent in its design, which have nothing to do with how well it's integrated on the desktop.
These problems all result of the BlueTooth standard trying to do too much. Because of that, many BlueTooth implementations can't do enough. Clear as mud? Try this: The creators of BlueTooth violated one of the key rules of networking: You don't mix the way in which information is transferred from one device to another with the services the device offers. The mechanism and protocols for moving packets of information from one device to another is a "low-level" function. Higher level functions such as file transfers, data security, and resource access, shouldn't care at all how the packets are moved. All they care is that they ask for some data and it gets there."
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 12:27 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 136
|
|
that and speed issues
bluetooth is just too sloow,,,
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 12:32 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 384
|
|
Bluetooth App Profiles
I know for sure that the designers of Bluetooth were aware of the difference between application protocol and transport. Bluetooth designer DELIBERATLY schewed this line in order to provide greater interoperability.
You have to remember that Bluetooth was NOT intended as a generalized network. It was meant as a replacement for cables.
Which cables ????? Well, that's just the problem. That's why Bluetooth defines application profiles. Without this, vendors would go off and implement their own protocols on top of a network transport. This is not a strategy for success.
Wi-Fi doesn't do the same. However, it doesn't have to. Network application protocols are by now, very well defined. http:, ftp: gopher:, https:, ping, etc... These are products of MANY long years of work by the academic community. They didn't spring from a commercial venture with a 2 year development cycle.
Considering that Wi-Fi is riding 30 years of development and Bluetooth is effectively starting fresh, I think they've made pretty good progress.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 12:35 AM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
So this is one of the great debates about Bluetooth - whether it should have violated the layered networking model or not.
If you view Bluetooth as a networking technology, then it did something it shouldn't have.
If you view Bluetooth as what it's supposed to be IMNSHO, a cable replacement technology, then the vision fits. There are different kinds of cables ("profiles"). Some of them support Ethernet ("LAN profile"), serial/RS-232 ("async"), or audio ("headset").
Incidentally, note the LAN profile I mentioned above - you can use Bluetooth in the ISO reference model just fine - just make it talk to other BT devices as a LAN entity.
Why do this? So you don't need a headset that, for example, implements TCP/IP (or NetBEUI) and needs to have an IP address!
Re security: this is also controversial. It's not clear at what layer security should appear - whether it's at the application (a la SSH and HTTPS) or at the network layer (IPSec), or at the physical layer (locked-down cables and Bluetooth). It's not really fair to say a physical-layer security model is outright wrong; it has its advantages and disadvantages. Do you want to see a Bluetooth headset not only implement IP but IPSec? OK, maybe we do, but there's advantages to using just the Bluetooth headset profile!
--bdj
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 12:36 AM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Doh; Will, you typed that darn fast or pipelined just ahead of me 
Well, I'm not the only one who sees the "intended vision" behind Bluetooth. 
--bdj
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 12:55 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Interesting thoughts guys. One thing I seen quite often is missing profiles - ie: you get someone releasing a device that should work with another device (let's say a Pocket PC and a headset) yet the profile isn't there. I guess that's the limitation of profiles - they need to be created. In comparison to a networking protocol, which doesn't have that limitation.
I guess we'll see if over the next few years Bluetooth gets hammered out to the point that every device will include every applicable profile.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 01:26 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 79
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
In comparison to a networking protocol, which doesn't have that limitation.
|
Seems to me that there is the same potential limitations with networking protocols. Say you buy a new NIC for your PC and go to install it and connect to your Novell 2.11 network. It very well may not have drivers for that protocol.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 01:40 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 338
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
I guess we'll see if over the next few years Bluetooth gets hammered out to the point that every device will include every applicable profile.
|
And therein lies the "rub". If manufacturers don't take note of that, then users will complain that devices don't work well, dooming Bluetooth... However, if manufacturers do include all the profiles, then the less sophisticated users will get confused by all the options.
I think Bluetooth is a great PAN technology. I can't wait to put it to good use with my forthcoming ipaq 5450!
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 01:48 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 56
|
|
It's my personal opinion that bluetooth should be relegated to Digimon toys.
There are already much better, much easier, much cheaper, and much more efficient means of wireless connections (including IR, of all things). I really wish that bluetooth were better, but it's not and it doesn't fit my needs, and the majority of the industry sees that also, just looking at the number of bluetooth cell phones available (the most toted bluetooth feature, wirelessly connecting to your cell phone to surf the internet, or using a headset) should reveal that fact.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-19-2002, 02:20 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 16
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MooseMaster
, just looking at the number of bluetooth cell phones available (the most toted bluetooth feature, wirelessly connecting to your cell phone to surf the internet, or using a headset) should reveal that fact.
|
Followed up closely by the large number of Wi-Fi cellphones, correct? :wink:
Just having some fun.  But I do think your comment touches upon a good point. It's not for everyone's needs and I think much gets lost in the realm of better = faster or even WiFi vs. Bluetooth. Bluetooth is a wireless way to remove cables from the equation.
I don't see the two being used for the same purpose. I don't need WiFi for connecting a GPS receiver to my PDA or for printing to a local printer. I do need WiFi if I want to stream video (compressed) or if I want to transfer large files as quickly as possible. To me, Bluetooth and WiFi are in many ways complementary. It's like a Palm vs. Microsoft debate..... hehe, sorry, just had to throw that in there.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
