Tom's Hardware Guide: Bluetooth, A Rundown [Archive]

View Full Version : Tom's Hardware Guide: Bluetooth, A Rundown

Jason Dunn

03-30-2003, 09:47 AM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20030328/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www6.tomshardware.com/consum...0328/index.html</a><br /><br /></div>"Bluetooth is a promising technology in the making. The keenest manufacturers keep assuring us that next year will be the year of Bluetooth, no matter that they've been doing so for the last seven years. But the reality is that IT shows tantalize us with oodles of mouth-watering products that never actually hit the shelves. Logitech has had a prototype Bluetooth keyboard/mouse set since 2000, but has finally been check-mated -- three years later -- by Microsoft with the Wireless Optical Desktop for Bluetooth."

jeffmd

03-30-2003, 10:07 AM

and then when they do hit shelves.. they cost lots of money. As if Bluetoothes range wasnt a big strike against it, the fact that wifi is cheaper accross all platforms in all forms. be it USB, PC, or compact flash, you can find wifi devices on sale for $50 easy, while BT rarly sales (just do a search on anandtech) and is allways around the $100 price point.

gpspassion

03-30-2003, 12:18 PM

Please, not another WiFi/Bluetooth debate...these technologies do not compete with each other at all!

Bluetooth: replaces serial cables/IR
WiFI: replaces Ethernet

Hope that helps ;-)

snowlion

03-30-2003, 01:35 PM

Please, not another WiFi/Bluetooth debate...these technologies do not compete with each other at all!

Bluetooth: replaces serial cables/IR
WiFI: replaces Ethernet

Hope that helps ;-)

that's like saying:

"Please, not another car/scooter debate...these transportations do not compete with each other at all!

Scooter: replaces walking for running short errands
Car: replaces buggy for going longer distances"

but if you can use a car for both - why does one need a scooter?

gpspassion

03-30-2003, 01:43 PM

You can't use WiFi for most of wat BT lets you do and vice versa, if you prefer it's like comparing apples and oranges, you can eat both and that's about it.
I think that until you've used a Bluetooth device like a GPS or a Phone and hooked it up to a PocketPC (or a PC) it will be hard to imagine/see te benefits. You can take my word for it...or not!

marlof

03-30-2003, 01:50 PM

that's like saying:

"Please, not another car/scooter debate...these transportations do not compete with each other at all!

Scooter: replaces walking for running short errands
Car: replaces buggy for going longer distances"

but if you can use a car for both - why does one need a scooter?

Because a scooter has certain advantages, such as that it runs more miles on a gallon, which helps saving the environment. In fact using the acoustic motorbike would even be better.

To take it on topic - in the case of Pocket PCs - Bluetooth gives me more juice out of my battery. I'd hate to use WiFi just for my connection to my mobile phone, if it costs as much battery life as WiFi web browsing... :) OTOH I love WiFi for networking, and had nothing but headaches with BT networking. Must be my problem, but fact is, WiFi worked better in that asepct for me.

snowlion

03-30-2003, 01:57 PM

the original statement of "these technologies do not compete with each other at all" i found a tad too strong. both of them allow wireless communications!

wifi could replace bt if need be and if the vendors produced such products.

...but i can also see each having their own place under the silicon sun.

gpspassion

03-30-2003, 01:58 PM

exactly my point!
I was able to browse te web via BT but it was a pain to set up and rather slow, slow enough that the PocketIE rendering had speed to spare...On the other hand it's probably safe to say they'll likely never make a WiFi GPS or a WiFi phone (unless it has a decent browser and fuel cell batteries of course...). There's just no point using 3x as much power for a connection that never needs to be more than for a few meters! Not to mention the whole master/slave setups built-in in Bluetooth that WiFi lacks.

I'm glad to we have both at our disposal! Something we couldn't dream of 3 years ago!

"wifi could replace bt if need be and if the vendors produced such products. " most likely not for the above stated reasons, but maybe you know something I don't ;-)

HTK

03-30-2003, 04:59 PM

Don Sorcinelli

03-30-2003, 05:27 PM

I've spent a lot of time working with Bluetooth technologies for the last 6 months. In the last month alone, I've worked with around a half dozen Bluetooth products for reviews.

The things that still amaze me after all of this are:

1) Vendors/Bluetooth leaders still do not effectively communicate the differences that differentiate this technology from WiFi. There is still a lot of confusion over the "Why Bluetooth" question, and I have to believe that it is due largely in part to even the vendors not being able to communicate the message.
I just demonstrated a number of Bluetooth solutions at our Boston Pocket PC UG meeting. I started each one with a "problem"; I then demonstrated how Bluetooth could solve the problem. In most cases, I also explained why the Bluetooth solution worked better than any other (including WiFi). For a lot of people, the lightbulb went on for the first time. If vendors and Bluetooth industry leaders could more effectively market this message, I think everyone would be better off.
2) Bluetooth vendors want widespread consumer acceptance, but write drivers/firmware/support software only "techies" understand. Most of the problems with Bluetooth are NOT the specification - it's the vendor's implementations. For general consumer acceptance, a technology MUST (no expections) be easy to both implement and work with. Some of the most "God-awful" applications written today are those from the vendors of Bluetooth hardware.
Hey, I understand that the current Bluetooth specifcation is not perfect (that's why there are new specs under review), but that does not give a vendor an excuse for cutting corners on the interfaces for end users. If anything, more effort needs to be put into overcoming technical limitations. BOTTOM LINE - If it is too difficult for a general consumer to use Bluetooth, it will not succeed in that general consumer market - period.
3) Those who know better still "muddy the waters". The Pocket PC community spends more time ranting and raving about how the mainstream press is either clueless, bias, or just plain "not worthy" when it comes to covering the Pocket PC. Well, the same thing happens with regards to Bluetooth. In many cases, the folks who are p**sed off about the Pocket PC issue are the biggest proponents of "Bluetooth = WiFi" and "WiFi is better" positions. Let's not have double standards here - misinformation (for any reason - prejudice, preference, or lack of knowledge) is still misinformation.

I'm sorry if I come off as "rant-ish" on this issue :oops: . Nothing frustrates and/or angers me more in life than avoidable nuisances/annoyances/grief. So much of what has been the pains surrounding Bluetooth are just that - avoidable. If more time was addressed on the real issues regarding Bluetooth, I think they might have already been solved.

DonS

P.S. - Now that I got that off my chest, I'm feeling better... :mrgreen:

JohnnyFlash

03-30-2003, 05:55 PM

I don't see how there is even a question of one being better than another, as they are designed for such different things, but if that is the kinda thing that makes you happy.. A wirless keyboard and mouse combo based on WiFi would be dumb. A high-speed home LAN based on Bluetooth would be equally dumb.

Discussion of whether Bluetooth is ready for prime time - I don't get that either. I've been using my T68i with Bluetooth for a while now, with my Apple set up. It syncs contacts, but also does cool stuff like automatically knows when I've come home and starts up my favourite applications. I can control my DVD player and MP3 player using the T68i as s remote control. Bluetooth has certainly done all it set out to do for me, and more. I'm happy to use it AND wifi - they both fulfill different needs.

gpspassion

03-30-2003, 06:40 PM

Yes, these are excellent points.

Looks like you're a step ahead of me ;-) Can you shed some light on your setup for all this automation.

Duncan

03-30-2003, 09:33 PM

Putting aside the whole BT versus WiFi issue (really - by this point it takes real ignorance of the two standards, and their respective purposes, to even try to argue that they compete... :roll: - WiFi equals fast, fat pipe and power hungry, BT equals slower, thin pipe and low power - how hard is that to grasp?) - I want to take issue with the idea that WiFi is easier to set up (and more ready for the 'prime time') than BT.

Generally - I have found some very poor implemenations of BT and also some very poor implementations of WiFi - but I have also found plenty of good implementations of each. However - BT has generally been very easy to set up - WiFi is still chock full of technical jargon and not at all 'consumer friendly' to set up. It seems clear to me which is ready for 'prime time'.

daS

03-30-2003, 10:19 PM

Let me throw here another possibility for the near future
Wifi with some sort of range-control to stretch or shrink the battery use. cell phones could make good use of it, some sort of sub-wifi to talk with our wifi-powered ppc´s and etc at short distances using way less battery power

just a thought though... :wink:
Well you must have known I'd weigh in on this one. :wink:

First, Bluetooth is inherently more power efficient than Wi-Fi. So as Wi-Fi continues to improve its power efficiency (which it is) Bluetooth can and will use the same hardware designs to stay a step ahead with even lower power needs.

But it's not just a question of battery power or range - Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are fundamentally different. Wi-Fi is specifically a wireless Ethernet. When making a connection, you are connecting to a LAN. This is different than Bluetooth which is more often used for ad hoc connections between two devices - more like a serial port connection. Bluetooth also natively supports audio connections. (Bluetooth also has LAN and PAN profiles, but they are secondary to the serial and/or audio profiles.)

In addition to providing the connection, Bluetooth defines higher-level standards such as the "headset profile" so that you can (in theory) connect a headset from any manufacturer to a phone (or other device) from another manufacturer.

Let's say you want to print a document with your Pocket PC or laptop at a customer's office: With Wi-Fi, if you want to print on a printer connected to the network, a network administrator must give you access to the network and hope that their security is sufficient to prevent you from hacking other computers on the network. (Most likely they will just not let you on.) With a Bluetooth enabled printer, the printer can be "discoverable" and allow you to see the printer without compromising security on other devices (including other Bluetooth devices.)

Allowing an ad hoc connection between two Wi-Fi devices requires configuring the IP addresses in a way that would disturb the ability for the devices to be accessible to the rest of the network. This is not true for Bluetooth.

This is not to say that Bluetooth is better than Wi-Fi. For network connections, Wi-Fi is faster and usually provides better range (although a laptop with a Class 1 radio talking to a Class 1 AP would have about the same range as Wi-Fi.) Also, Wi-Fi is more readily available (such as the hotspots at Starbucks) for network connections.

To use yet another analogy, they are like a hammer and a screwdriver. They both are tools that are used to drive in hardware to hold things together. In a pinch, you can use the back of a screwdriver to hammer a nail, or you might even be able to grab the screw head with the claw of the hammer and turn it with some effort - but having both tools at your disposal to use where appropriate is MUCH more efficient.

Of course, I encourage everyone to visit our site (www.BluetoothNews.com) for more info. You might even want to continue this discussion on our forums (http://www.bluetoothnews.com/phpBB2) (where it seems to make more sense.)

jeffmd

03-30-2003, 11:18 PM

Don Sorcinelli

03-30-2003, 11:39 PM

there isnt a BT device out there that I couldnt think of a way to configure for working over wireless lan, and the benifits of doing so (ie not being tied to one computer) would far benifit most of the devices.

Sure, you can probably come up with a way for WiFi to mimic a Bluetooth solution. However, the steps involved and the amount of effort required limit the solution to only the most technical few. That is EXACTLY what Bluetooth is supposed to avoid.

Making WiFi "do" Bluetooth (or vice-versa) is a "round peg in a square hole" solution. Average consumers do not buy into this (either literally or figuratively). It is that audience that Bluetooth is supposed address with wireless device connectivity.

DonS

daS

03-31-2003, 12:02 AM

Bluetooth also natively supports audio connections.

mono low quality audio connections maybe. I hardly would call BT's method of handeling audio streaming anything special, it streams raw adio. a smart implimentation would allow for compressions to be used.
Actually, the current audio profile uses the same codec as the phone system. While certainly it's poor quality for anything but voice, it's actually better for voice since it filters out a lot of the background sounds. For music, the Bluetooth SIG has a stereo profile in the works and I've listened to a demo from Toshiba of a Bluetooth stereo headset connected to a Pocket PC that was quite good.

imagin being able to use the same mouse on multiple networked computers? (afaik each computer would need its own blue tooth modual if you tried to do the same thing).
And how would you manage that? Or would the cursor on all the computers move together? What would be the point? Also, you would have a much higher danger of a hacker getting into your mouse/keyboard connection than with Bluetooth's superior security.

As for power, think about it people. current implimentations of wifi IS for networking! there for to get the distance you need the power. HOWEVER, if I were to impliment a SHORT RANGE wifi device ie a wireless mouse, I could cut the power to that of bluetooth's EASY!
Actually, you are wrong about this. It's not just the range that defines the power requirements, it's also the transmission method. Wi-Fi uses direct sequence spread spectrum, while Bluetooth uses frequency hopping spread spectrum. Direct sequence is more power hungry in general - even at the same physical range. Also, because of the protocols used, two Bluetooth devices can reduce their power output to just what's needed for them to communicate - that's not the case for Wi-Fi.

your basing your argument on power consumption without actually haveing 2 simular applications(devices, ie mouse) ACCEPT for file transfer, and we know who wins that one.
As I noted, the power requirements for Wi-Fi are inherently higher than for Bluetooth - even at the same distances. On the other hand, my argument in favor of Bluetooth (for where it's best used) go far beyond power. Bluetooth includes usage profiles as part of the specifications. While there are still some "growing pains" being worked out, this is soon to be seen as a huge advantage much the way USB slowly is becoming more "plug and play".

The idea of a Wi-Fi mouse will scare just about any IT manager out there. Not so with Bluetooth (if they understand its security implementation.)

Again, this is not to say that Bluetooth is better than Wi-Fi, but just because they are both wireless, doesn't mean that they are designed to do the same jobs.

there isnt a BT device out there that I couldnt think of a way to configure for working over wireless lan, and the benifits of doing so (ie not being tied to one computer) would far benifit most of the devices.
The biggest issues against Bluetooth right now are price and ease of setup. Both of these are similar to the early days of USB (and Wi-Fi for that matter.) Both are being addressed rapidly. Bluetooth enabled phones are competitively priced and headsets are appearing for under $60. The Bluetooth chipsets are dropping in price and adding features that make it easier for a product manufacture to include without a lot of extra design work. Since there are many more cellular phones sold than computers, this will soon make Bluetooth cheaper than Wi-Fi. At that point, (and with Bluetooth 2.0 adding greater speed) the arguments will start being reversed and I will have to explain why Wi-Fi is still the best choice for what it's designed for. :wink:

jeffmd

03-31-2003, 02:09 AM

ok, so maybe it cant drop its power usage down to that of bt.

And wifi will never dissapear... maybe in the future it will get upgraded when G becomes more widespread and cheaper.. but BT cant possibly do any damage on its networking asspect. ;p

daS

03-31-2003, 02:32 AM

but BT cant possibly do any damage on its networking asspect. ;p
I don't understand why you think that anyone associated with Bluetooth is looking to do damage to Wi-Fi. As I've been saying - the two technologies are complementary not competitors. The best evidence of this is the growing number of devices (such as the iPAQ 5450) that are supporting both.

jimski

03-31-2003, 05:33 AM

Enough already. I use Bluetooth to connect my 5450 to my T68i every day. I use Bluetooth to connect my T68i to my Motorola Wireless Headset when I travel. I use WiFi to connect my 5450 to my office and home networks often.

Why, because these are the best available options. When something better comes along, I will adopt that as the new "best". All of the options above were easy to setup and are easy to use (unlike trying to get ActiveSync to work with Bluetooth or WiFi).

I will take wireless anyway I can get it. Looking forward to wireless battery chargers before the end of the year (not Bluetooth or WiFi).