Bluetooth needs to get its act together

[Jason Dunn]

Ok, it's time for me to roll up my sleeves and rant a little. Ed sure stirred up some controversy with <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1621">his post yesterday</a>, and numerically speaking it seems that most people seem to think that Bluetooth is a great technology. But what about the implementation? Vote in the poll and tell me what you think.<br /><br />The common thread I see with the people who think Bluetooth rocks is the focus on the implementation rather than the standard. To a certain extent, that's true - if there's a company out there that's doing a really poor job of writing their drivers and software, that company is to blame, and not the standard. But those of you taking this stance are ignoring the most important factor here: consumers don't care about pointing fingers, they just want something that works. If I buy a car, drive it off the lot, and promptly have two of the four tires explode on me, I don't want to hear an explanation from the techs that says "Well, two of your four tires were built on the Tire 1.0 protocol, and the other two are built on the 1.2 spec. You need to go buy compatible tires." Why did they sell me incompatible tires to begin with? How can a company make tires on the 1.0 protocol and still call them tires?<br /><br />See, that's what standards do folks. They make complicated things easier by making sure everyone agrees on how things are built and operate with each other (yes, I know that's a simplistic definition). The problem, and the frustration Ed and I both have with Bluetooth, is that many companies making Bluetooth products don't adhere to the standards, and thus produce crappy devices that don't work. I'll grant you the point that if everyone adhered to proper Bluetooth standards it would all work together nicely - but that has no bearing on this problem. People want things that work. The Bluetooth SIG has had <b>years</b> to work this out, and if device to device communication was important to them, they'd be strict about testing every Bluetooth device and withholding approval of the device if it didn't work. The fact that every device has profiles, and some lack profiles they "should" have only further complicates things. It's like Windows XP supporting HTTP but not FTP.<br /><br />I know that Bluetooth works for some of you, but like Ed, nearly every experience I've had with Bluetooth has been frustrating. Socket Communications gave me a Bluetooth card, so I'll give it another try, but <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=719">my experience with the Anycom card</a> was anything but pleasant. I long for Bluetooth nirvana, but I'm still searching for it. How about you?

[Arne Hess]

Bluetooth Rulez!

I can not live without Bluetooth anymore and if I should decide between a Bluetooth or W-LAN equipped Pocket PC like the new Toshiba, I would take the Bluetooth one for sure. It can connects to my mobile phone every time and brings me to the new while I'm more limited with W-LAN Internet access. My mobile phone is always with me, a TCP/IP based Wi-Fi network not!
Also I've just posted a news about first public Bluetooth Internet access points at a coffee house chain in Germany (http://www.ppcw.net/stories.php?story=02/06/12/4449883). So even here (on the W-LAN network side) Bluetooth could becomes interesting as it consumes less power than Wi-Fi cards!

[Master O'Mayhem]

Jason,

I agree with you. I have had alot of experience with BT and its software and the most pressing problem is the interoperabilty of devices. Sockets card works great and has the easiest UI and setup. Getting anyone of my BT devices to work together is the big challenge:

IBM A30P
IBM A31P
Sony Vaio PCG-SRX41P
T68 T68i
Socket BT CF card
IBM BT PCMCIA Card
COMPAQ 3870
HP 995C BT printer
Ericsson HBH-10 HBH-20 Headset
SONY PCR120BT MiniDV CAm
AnyCOM PCMCIA
ANYCOM Printer module

You would think that all these should work together, but they dont. That is the problem. What version is everything going to work together? 1.1 10.1?? dont get me wrong.. BT is cool and it does work but not with everything

[Don Sorcinelli]

Personally, I love Bluetooth. I have been using it with my PPC, PCs and printer, and it does what it is supposed to - simplify my life. Elimination of cabling and switching hardware for printers was the BIG plus for me. I am also a person who does not mind (and frequently has to) get "under the hood" to make things work. While I had some very minor problems when I first installed and configured hardware, software and drivers on different devices, they were problems nonetheless. And that is where the "big picture" problem exists.

There is no way that I believe that Bluetooth will gain widescale acceptance until ALL of the aspects regarding the technology are ironed out. I include:

- Hardware installation
- Software installation
- Configuration
- "Intelligence" (auto-discovery, bonding rules, etc.)

The current implementations of Bluetooth out there today are not, for the most part, geared toward end-users. I cringe when I think out the average PC user configuring a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse 8O . I can only hope that the software implementation is greatly improved over what I have seen to date.

BOTTOM LINE - Bluetooth can rock today for those who can work with it in its current form. Bluetooth can eventually rock for "the masses", but only if the overall experience is improved.

[Ed Hansberry]

I'll grant you the point that if everyone adhered to proper Bluetooth standards it would all work together nicely - but that has no bearing on this problem.
I won't grant any such thing. I am not a techie up to date on the reams of paper that make up the BT standard, but the last time I recall a major standard backed by a whole slew of people it was the dueling 56K-Flex and X2 consortiums that gave us 56K modem speeds. Half the time those modems within the same "standard" wouln't talk to each other and even if you found a 56K-Flex server, you were lucky to get over 33.6K, which was basically the V.90 28.8K standard. I suspect the BT standard looks a bit like the IRS code. Everyone and their grandmother had something to pitch in and getting it all to reconcile into one unified clean product is turning out to be very difficult.

Either that, or they are all just a bunch of morons that can't read instructions. :wink: Is there a "Implementing BlueTooth in your products for Dummies" yet?

[Ravnia]

Hi, I recently found this Fujitsu laptop...you can remove the keyboard & touchpad for better typing and it is connected to the computer via BT.

Check it out: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/rl/products/workstations/mobile/celsiusmobile/celsiusmobile_h.html

Mike

[angelseye2000]

and numerically speaking it seems that most people seem to think that Bluetooth is a great technology. BLUETOOTH ITSELF IS A GREAT TECHNOLOGY. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARD IS SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S THE MAIN PROBLEM I THINK (2 MANY PROFILES?). 802.11 IS A COMPLETE DIFFERENT COMPOSED WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY STANDARD. THERE WILL BE (OR ARE) COMPLETE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS WITH BLUETOOTH THEN WITH 802.11. BUT THE PROS OF A STANDARD 'CAN' ALSO CONTAIN SOME MINORS AT THE SAME TIME.

The common thread I see with the people who think Bluetooth rocks..... THEY DON'T THINK THAT ONLY, THEY KNOW IT. BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOME PRODUCTS WHICH WORK. MY BLUETOOTH HEADSET WORKS GREAT WITH MY PHONE.

But those of you taking this stance ignore the most important factor here: consumers don't care about pointing fingers, they just want something that works. 100% TRUE. SOME PRODUCTS WORK SOME DON'T. (JUST WONDERING IF EVERY 802.11 PRODUCT WORKS?)

BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT TALKING DOOM AND GLOOM ABOUT BLUETOOTH: THIS IS A MIX OF THINGS LIKE: OVERHYPE, BAD WRITTEN ARTICLES BY SO-CALLED TECH WRITERS, DIFFICULT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY STANDARD, AVERAGE PEOPLE WHO DON'T NO ##### STILL TALK AND REPEAT THEMSELF ON DIFFERENT BOARDS AND PDA SITES WITH THINGS LIKE "BLUETOOTH IS TO SLOW" (TO DO WHAT?), "IT DOESN'T HAVE THE RANGE LIKE WIFI" (WITH A BLUETOOTH MOBILE PHONE YOU ANYWHERE, EVERYWHERE CONNECTIVITY AND YOU DON'T NEED HOTSPOTS/ACCESS POINTS AS WITH WIFI, SO?), "I DON'T NEED BLUETOOTH BECAUSE IF HAVE WIFI" (COULD BE...IT'S LIKE NOT USING A BICYCLE BECAUSE YOU USE YOUR CAR ONLY) ETC. ETC. IT'S BORING STUFF OR INCOMPLETE.

The problem, and the frustration Ed and I both have with Bluetooth, is that many companies making Bluetooth products don't adhere to the standards, and thus produce crappy devices that don't work. EVERY TECHNOLOGY HAS HIS GOOD AND BAD PRODUCTS. BUT THE BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY BRINGS ALSO SOME HEAVY BAGGAGE WITH IT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT INHERENT WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. (MAYBE STANDARIZED BLUETOOTH STANDARD WILL WORK THIS OUT?). I HOPE MORE PRODUCTS TESTS OVER DIFFERENT COMPANIES AND UNPLUGGED FESTS WILL MAKE BLUETOOTH MORE INTEROPERABLE.

The Bluetooth SIG has had years to work this out, and if device to device communication was important to them, they'd be strict about testing every Bluetooth device and withholding approval of the device if it didn't work. 802.11 HAS AN ADVANTAGE FOR BEING EARLIER ON THE MARKET ALSO BECAUSE THE STARTED IN 199O. SO THE WIFI STANDARD DOESN'T CAME OVERNIGHT. BLUETOOTH STARTED IN THE MID 90'S FOUND THIS:

"Even with the recent delays, the progression of the Bluetooth standard is far ahead of the adoption rates of almost any other comparable technology. Many point to the sudden emergence of 802.11b as proof that Bluetooth has already been superseded by more advanced technologies. However, the truth is that the road towards 802.11b's success began over a decade ago in 1990 when the IEEE 802 Executive Committee established the 802.11 Working Group to create a wireless local area network (WLAN) standard. The b variant simply represents the emergence of a version of the standard that is a viable mass-market commercial solution. In comparison, Ericsson first began toying with the idea of a short-range wireless technology in 1994, four years after work on 802.11 began. Furthermore, although the inspiration for Bluetooth occurred in 1994, real work on the technology as an industry standard did not start until the original Special Interest Group was formed in 1998. The 1.0 specification was released a mere two years ago in July 1999. The 1.1 version was finalized in february 2001."

I know that Bluetooth works for some of you, but like Ed, nearly every experience I've had with Bluetooth has been frustrating. HAVE YOU USED A BLUETOOTH HEADSET WITH A BLUETOOTH MOBILE PHONE? OR THE NEW 3COM PRINT ADAPTER? USB DONGLES? TRY THE NEW SOCKET CARDS JASON. AM VERY CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR OPINION.

Has Bluetooth arrived?
1. Yes - Bluetooth rules.
2. No - it needs more work before it's ready
3. No - Bluetooth is useless and doomed by 802.11x

Polls like this are fun for certain people but not very usefull. There are 2 little choices first of all. Second, the choices are incomplete or picked wrong i think.

1. Bluetooth rules what? Bluetooth is just an very interesting cable replacement wireless technology.
2. The standard itself is ok. The interpretation of it by the (over) 2000 Bluetooth Company Members is another question. Certain products don't work or not how they should be, others work great. Bluetooth Compatibility Charts can help. Maybe this will help also: IEEE APPROVES IEEE 802.15.1 STANDARD FOR WIRELESS PERSONAL AREA NETWORKS ADAPTED FROM THE BLUETOOTH® SPECIFICATION
http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/802151app.html

Bluetooth Compatibility Charts
http://www.tdksys.com/Products/images/Bluetoothcomp.pdf
http://www.pico.net/compatibility.html
http://www.compaq.com/products/wireless/wpan/btcompmatrix.html

3. It's like saying a bicycle is useless!!!!!!!! Bluetooth isn't useless and is market as a PAN technology vs 802.11 being a LAN technology. To compare both is comparing apples with peers (or comparing a car with a bicycle). Both are DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DIFFERENT NEEDS.

A few months ago, some technology observers were predicting the demise of the Bluetooth wireless technology before it ever got off the ground. It would be done in, they said, by 802.11b (Wi-Fi) wireless-LAN technology. There wasn't room in the marketplace for both, they said.
They were wrong, because their conclusions were based on a misguided comparison of Bluetooth and 802.11b for application as a LAN. The two serve very different purposes and simply don't compete in the marketplace (see the sidebar, "Different animals").
http://www.anywhereyougo.com/bluetooth/Article.po?id=4278075

JMHO

angel

[angelseye2000]

Has Bluetooth arrived?
Yes - Bluetooth rules.
33% [ 3 ]
No - it needs more work before it's ready
33% [ 3 ]
No - Bluetooth is useless and doomed by 802.11x
33% [ 3 ]

Total Votes : 9

----------------

Checked the poll to see if the people who filled in "Bluetooth is useless and doomed by 802.11x" have any interesting info to share?

Silly me. lol

[angelseye2000]

Bluetooth Rulez!

I can not live without Bluetooth anymore and if I should decide between a Bluetooth or W-LAN equipped Pocket PC like the new Toshiba, I would take the Bluetooth one for sure. It can connects to my mobile phone every time and brings me to the new while I'm more limited with W-LAN Internet access. My mobile phone is always with me, a TCP/IP based Wi-Fi network not!
Also I've just posted a news about first public Bluetooth Internet access points at a coffee house chain in Germany (http://www.ppcw.net/stories.php?story=02/06/12/4449883). So even here (on the W-LAN network side) Bluetooth could becomes interesting as it consumes less power than Wi-Fi cards!

Thanx for dropping by Arne. ;o)

[cptnshred]

I developed a system for finding hardware that works. I decide what I ideally want, and start buying and returning and buying and returning until I get what works. For example, I wanted a BT PCI card - I didn't want a little antenna that was going to break off, and I wanted at least one LED to tell me it was working. I started with the Toshiba card. After several hours of trying, it wouldn't work. I don't care if it was me or the card - that's about usability. In this case, life was simple: I returned the Toshiba card and bought the 3Com card. I had to give up the solid antenna, I had to go without an LED, but it works. I voted that BT still needs work, but it works great for me now. (Between my Notebook and ipaq, anyway.) BT is still bleeding edge, as are most of us who are reading things like this. It will take some time for the good implementers to be rewarded. A "best of class" will develop as with all hardware, and the loosers will loose. I think what several of you have said is correct. It's the implementers doing a bad job - don't reward them - just take it back!

[Joff]

How do you vote???

[Jason Dunn]

How do you vote???

Look at the very top of the page - you should see a few radio buttons...

[Duncan]

The problem, and the frustration Ed and I both have with Bluetooth, is that many companies making Bluetooth products don't adhere to the standards, and thus produce crappy devices that don't work. Unlike, of course, DVD machines; computers; computer peripherals (plug'n'play); Wi-Fi - where all standards are agreed, every device 'just works' as it should and everyone is happy...


I suspect the BT standard looks a bit like the IRS code. Everyone and their grandmother had something to pitch in and getting it all to reconcile into one unified clean product is turning out to be very difficult.
Actually - Bluetooth was pretty much put toether by one team, the majority working for Ericsson. WiFi on the other hand - I've just been looking at some artcles on the development of 802.11 - and boy does it make for scary reading...

Problems boil down to two areas -

1) Poor software written by the manufacturer - fine - there are plenty of hardware companies who write crap software for their devices (Compaq anyone) - do what anyone does, boyott them. Sure that doesn't help memebers of the general public but they will always get screwed by major companies.

2) Lack of profile implementation. I go down the TDK route because they include all of the key profiles (someone said they couldn't get their TDK dongle to talk to a TDK PC Card - the communication between those two is so smooth I cannot figure out how they managed to complicate it!!!). 3COM don't - God knows why! So I don't buy 3COM - BUT that makes 3COM the idiots, not the developers of BT.

C'mon - this whole thesis that BT is poor because the general public don't want to know about profiles not being implemented etc. - very poor thinking! On that very basis - all computer OS's are bad, all computer harware is bad and so on...

BUT - if I'm going to buy a car I check out reviews in the car mags - if I'm going to buy a BT enabled device - I check out the reviews - because I know that if BT was the simplest standard in the world somebody will still screw it up!

[Ed Hansberry]

C'mon - this whole thesis that BT is poor because the general public don't want to know about profiles not being implemented etc. - very poor thinking! On that very basis - all computer OS's are bad, all computer harware is bad and so on...

BUT - if I'm going to buy a car I check out reviews in the car mags - if I'm going to buy a BT enabled device - I check out the reviews - because I know that if BT was the simplest standard in the world somebody will still screw it up!
Sorry but that doesn't fly. Bluetooth has been billed as a simple cable replacement that is as easy to use as IR. Ok, profiles complicate things slightly but that isn't the issue. It is the fact that two bluetooth devices may or may not work. It is like buying a new app and installing it in DOS. Will it work? Won't it? Will I need to mess with HiMem.sys? Do I have to unload my mouse driver?

At least with that DOS app, it was guaranteed you could get it running if you gave it a custom config.sys and autoexec.bat file. With these bluetooth devices, there may be nothing the end user can do because it is simply broken.

[EricMCarson]

I have tested BT for several months now with a variety of devices (Anycom, TDK, 3Com/HP, T68i, H3870, HP Printer Module, Anycom Printer Module, Red-M wireless LAN access point, etc.). The previous posts are correct in that not all BT stuff works together...BUT... the common link I have found in stuff not working together is that the standards don't match between the products (i.e., 1.0b trying to connect to a 1.1 device).

Anycom, in particular, is releasing cards that are NOT 1.1 compatible, even though the literature claims that they are. I have broken down the Anycom device to the chip level and found 1.0b implementation in a 1.1 standard product. I have never had any issues with 1.1 products connecting, syncing, or utilizing another 1.1 product.

I love the BT standard, because it allows me to roam anywhere and not lose connectivity (I can pause a radio program from the office, and pick it up in the car on the GPRS connection). If the manufacturers of this fantastic "standard" would realize that releasing products that don't match up with the standard, they are actually harming the product and the standard, we may actually see headway here. Otherwise, beware of poor manufacturer implementation.

[Rob Alexander]

It's all just a matter of time. Lots of technologies that we take for granted now started out this way. Remember when you kept all of your HDDs the same brand because you couldn't mix certain combinations even though they were all IDE drives from a common spec? Ed's already mentioned the modem thing and that one's happened with about every major change in speed. Remember how you couldn't mix DRAM of different brands, even though they were of the same spec? It just goes on and on. But people do what cptnshed said and they return the things that don't work. The companies do respond to that eventually and the standard firms up and things start working together. It'll take a few years, and it'll be frustrating in the mean time, but it's just a process we have to go through and it can't happen until the products actually get out in the hands of consumers. Four years from now, you'd look back at this thread and wonder what all the fuss was about. These are early days; relax, take back what doesn't work, and it'll all get sorted out.

[angelseye2000]

[quote]
2) Lack of profile implementation. I go down the TDK route because they include all of the key profiles (someone said they couldn't get their TDK dongle to talk to a TDK PC Card - the communication between those two is so smooth I cannot figure out how they managed to complicate it!!!). 3COM don't - God knows why! So I don't buy 3COM - BUT that makes 3COM the idiots, not the developers of BT.

yeah yeah.....

ZDNet: Bluetooth breakthrough: Wireless printing that works

(excerpt) The reason I'm spending so much column space on this fascinating (to me, anyway) story is because the 3Com kit was so easy to set up and worked so much better than I expected.

http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2868133,00.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/zd/20020529/tc_zd/927419

[angelseye2000]

:wink: Scientist tips features of Bluetooth 2.0
By Junko Yoshida
EE Times
June 12, 2002 (2:05 p.m. EST)

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A scientist at Ericsson Technology Licensing has leaked the basic features of the upcoming Bluetooth 2.0 wireless communications specification targeted at personal-area networks, which has been kept under wraps by the standards-setting Bluetooth Special Interest Group. The 2.0 spec is expected to support gross rates of 4, 8 and 12 Mbits per second, said chief scientist Jan Haartsen in a speech prior to the Bluetooth Congress here.

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020611S0033

GSM Association and Bluetooth SIG to Explore Benefits of Short Range Wireless Technologies
Effort to identify the applications and services that will drive demand for Bluetooth wireless-enabled handsets using GSM and 3G networks
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020612/120218_1.html

Gigabyte Licenses Blue802 Technology From Silicon Wave and Intersil For Dual-Mode Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Wireless Solutions
Blue802(TM) Technology Delivers Optimal Simultaneous Operation of Bluetooth(TM) and Wi-Fi Wireless Technologies in PCs
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020612/120220_1.html

New Bluetooth Kit for Palm-Based PDAs
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020612/bs_nf/18191

Some interesting news won't you think.

;)

[innersky]

2) Lack of profile implementation. I go down the TDK route because they include all of the key profiles (someone said they couldn't get their TDK dongle to talk to a TDK PC Card - the communication between those two is so smooth I cannot figure out how they managed to complicate it!!!).

Yes they do talk to each other, but the network profile does not work between these two devices. Heck, there was even a zdnet article saying this...
And don't get me even started about their range.

[Daniel]

I have 3 BT devices:
1. Ericsson T39
2. Compaq BT/CFII Expansion Pack
3. Ericsson BT Headset (HBH-15)

They all work very well together (aside from the lack of a headset profile on the iPAQ), I have had (up to this point) a very good experience.
I am now looking for a USB BT adapter but I can't seem to find anything that is relatively cheap (US$150 = ~AU$300).

Any suggestions (damn D-Link would be best but they've canned it apparently).

Daniel

[mbrinkho]

I was very excited about the possibilities of BT when the 3870 came out. When I purchased one and the 3Com Bluetooth PC card I thought I was set for a great geek-out session of wireless web surfin' and syncin'. Unfortunately at the time the 3Com BT stuff didn't work with the 3870. After the Compaq BT update the 3Com card started working, but I still have a 'bad taste in my mouth' about Bluetooth. :(

As an aside I've found that this cheap no-name USB BT module seems to work great with the iPAQ and is less than $50 at CompGeeks while they last. (I don't work for them.)

http://www.compgeeks.com/details.asp?invtid=BLU1-DNGL-WB

[angelseye2000]

Running Interference
There's a Big Threat to 802.11b Networking, Yet Nobody Seems to Care -- Here's Why
By Robert X. Cringely
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020606.html

[mikeschmidt]

For those of users who do NOT want ONE device with "all" capabilities,
bluetooth is the answer. (Personally, I want to be able to upgrade/change
individual components not everything.)

iPaq3850+PCMCIA sleeve+PCMCIA2CF adaptor+Socket BT CF card
Nokia 6310 (GPRS, Bluetooth)
3Com BT USB dongle

- Check email/surf internet on bus going to work (iPaq&amp;6310)
- ActiveSync Calander/Tasks/Email at office (iPaq&amp;3Com). Have you ever
need to use the PDA while it was in the cradle? That sucks! I am glad I
don't have to do that anymore. Reclining in my office chair is much nicer.
- Bored at meetings: check email/surf, others will think you are taking notes
(iPaq&amp;6310)
- ActiveSync before I go home
- Check email/AIM with friends back on the bus. The person next to you
will be glad you are not trying to get your phone out of your pocket,
trying to keep the IRs aligned or managing 3meters of cable.

Did I mention I can surf over ActiveSync using the passthrough capabilities?

For the PDA &amp; mobile phone user, this is the answer.

/ mike

[gracar]

I had the good fortune to recently upgrade to an iPaq 3870 and yesterday I git my new Nokia 6310i. Within 2 hours I was rocking and rolling with bluetooth. Thanks to all of the people who have posted papers, tips and the like there's plenty of information to take away the pain. I'm a happy bluetooth user and am now off to order a headset.

[Joff]

How do you vote???

Look at the very top of the page - you should see a few radio buttons...

Well, these are the buttons I've got at the top of the page:

FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register
Profile Login to check your private messages Login

Which one is it to vote??? Can't see any saying "Vote". Am I blind or what? 8O

SORRY GUYS, the voting menu has just appeared after sending this post. There is something wrong here, it wasn't there before.