Bluetooth to Outship Wi-Fi Five to One

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/69/31262.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/69/31262.html</a><br /><br /></div>"Bluetooth will become the dominant wireless technology, building market share by stealth as the Wi-Fi hotspot bubble bursts, market watcher Forrester Research has forecast. It's undoubtedly a contentious claim. Wi-Fi is being backed by some of the IT industry's biggest names - Intel, Apple, Cisco et al - not to mention a host of new and established service providers - BT, T-Mobile, The Cloud etc. - keen to tap into a perceived demand for high speed data access on the move. Bluetooth, by contrast, has largely failed to grab the public's attention as a 'must have' and has widely been dismissed as a technology set to be out-evolved by ubiquitous Wi-Fi in the home and the office."<br /><br />Interesting - so far, in my world at least, WiFi outstrips Bluetooth by quite a bit, but Bluetooth is gaining ground. What's it like in your world?

[PJE]

Why is everyone obsessed with pitting WiFi against Bluetooth?

I see them as complementary solutions. WiFi for wireless networking, and Bluetooth for short range communications as a cable replacement. Until WiFi can can compete with Bluetooth for power, price and complexity...

I currently don't have a Bluetooth phone, so I have a WiFi card for my Axim and a couple of remote PCs at home. If my PDA had built in Bluetooth I'd probably invest in a Bluetooth to Ethernet link in my living room.

What interests me is the newer proposed short range wireless devices offering much higher bandwidth... I'd like to see a world where placing my video recorder next to my TV/HiFi is all I need to do to connect them...

PJE

[JonnoB]

When you have WiFi it is most likely being used. It is almost always an intentional purchase and deployment.

BT on the other hand will be installed on millions of phones and the phone users won't even know about it or care. The promise for pervasive BT is compelling, but it has to work seamlessly to be worthwhile and right now, it just falls flat on its face most of the time. There needs to be a new BT that works.

[Janak Parekh]

Why is everyone obsessed with pitting WiFi against Bluetooth?
Totally agreed. Counting which is WiFi and which is Bluetooth doesn't mean anything, IMHO. ;)

There needs to be a new BT that works.
Tell that to the many people who are using BT headsets, or the T68 connected to their Pocket PC. A lot of people are even buying the Jabra BT headset for non-BT phones (it comes with an adapter).

--janak

[JonnoB]

Tell that to the many people who are using BT headsets, or the T68 connected to their Pocket PC. A lot of people are even buying the Jabra BT headset for non-BT phones (it comes with an adapter).


Yes, I like the idea of BT, but the current implementation is too slow for high-bandwidth cable-free solutions. Seen any good stereo speaker headsets? Replacing my cable - how does it replace my firewire? At this point, BT has alot of hype, but appears to be not much more than a wireless handsfree adaptor for phones and a minimal replacement for IR and cabled connectivity to a PDA for phone data access. I thought it would be so much more.

Meanwhile, WiFi although intended for different markets is being developed to consume less power, provide streaming media and data exchange profiles (Cisco has a new WiFi phone). I forsee a time as more connecting technologies move to packet-based networking, that all previously wired connectivity will be based on IP wireless. This will make things like the existing BT moot and although not based on todays WiFi, even PAN will be IP future WiFi based.

[AZMark]

Own 1 Wi-Fi card for Axim.

Also own...
1 CF BT card for Axim workng
1 T68i w/internal BT working
1 BT headset working with T68i, not as headset for Axim
2 BT dongles for connecting T68i and Axim with desktop and laptop

all working. Anyone who hasn't been able to get BT to work, just hasn't taken the minute or two to get it working. BT can be very very easy, example, headset to T68i. Does it need work on the PC, PPC side, yes, but what is out there now is very workable.

It's all out there and usable! Do it! Why wait, phones with Wi-Fi aren't here, and may not be in the near term. Wi-Fi headphones? headsets? haven't seen those. GPS with bluetooth, yep, easy and already shipping.
Socket is even coming out with an adapter that will turn any serial device into a BT device.

If you on the fence on BT, have a bit of IQ and a little paintence, just jump on in the water is fine!

[jkabaseball]

wifi is great for places where you can connect but with bluetooth + cell you can connect almost anywhere.

???? wifi towers (like cell), national coverage???


Why not both? then we can both live happy :D :mrgreen: :D

[Jonathan1]

.....what were the guys at Forrester Research perfered drug of choice....crack, coke, or weed?

:twak:

Because it's obvious he was on SOMETHING when he wrote this. BlueTooth has what? A 30' range? End of story. Its a PAN networking method unless you want all your users to huddle around an access point, what a sight!, that won't work.

WIFI has what? To Mars or Jupiter? (Give me a big enough antenna and I'll contact the universe.) Its a WLAN. Its built for range. End of book.

Compairing the two is critically braindead...its like compairing USB2 or FireWire to CAT5.... :roll:

[aroma]

"Bluetooth will become the dominant wireless technology,...


This is the line that bothers me. I guess it would depend upon the definitino of "dominant technology". If you are talking about the number of chips sold... sure. If you are talking about technology actually in use, then I would say WiFi would definately dominate at this point. I've got lots of devices I've purchased, or plan on purchasing, that come with BT installed, but I'll never use it. On the other hand, every WiFi equiped device I've purchased is in use. Just like someone said earlier, WiFi seems to be a more intentional purchase, where BT is simply being packaged with everything. (Before everyone starts with "everything I own has BT and I use it, this was just my opinion, based on my experience and the fact I see a LOT more WiFi devices in use than BT.)

[Skoobouy]

Actually, this is just the news I wanted to hear.

I think that, at bottom, the article is correct: Wifi bubble will pop, and BlueTooth will grow. But these trends have nothing to do with each other. In any case, I will be _very_ happy to see BlueTooth become ubiquitous. I just can't wait until all that BT stuff like hard drives and access points comes down in price. Maybe it will happen sooner than later.

[Kati Compton]

I see them as complementary solutions. WiFi for wireless networking, and Bluetooth for short range communications as a cable replacement. Until WiFi can can compete with Bluetooth for power, price and complexity...
What is the actual range for most bluetooth devices? I haven't ever used it, but am considering it in the future for keyboard/mouse.
Unless Bluetooth can let me use my laptop wirelessly on the network while I'm outside like WiFi can, I don't see them replicating the same functionality. Likewise, WiFi currently takes way too much power to just use as a cordless method to connect a keyboard. And I don't need that kind of range for my keyboard.

If there were to be some new networking method that let you manually set the range you wanted it to work at, I could see that being a good replacement for both...

Again, I don't know much about bluetooth - what's the limit on the # of devices that can be hosted?

[mv]

Someday, all, or most handhelds will have BT and WiFi. WiFi is fine for some things, BT for others. It´s funny how some people argue wich one is best, remind me of the palm vs. ppc threads. (PPC always won :wink: )

[freitasm]

Tell that to the many people who are using BT headsets, or the T68 connected to their Pocket PC. A lot of people are even buying the Jabra BT headset for non-BT phones (it comes with an adapter).


Yes, I like the idea of BT, but the current implementation is too slow for high-bandwidth cable-free solutions. Seen any good stereo speaker headsets? Replacing my cable - how does it replace my firewire? At this point, BT has alot of hype, but appears to be not much more than a wireless handsfree adaptor for phones and a minimal replacement for IR and cabled connectivity to a PDA for phone data access. I thought it would be so much more.

Meanwhile, WiFi although intended for different markets is being developed to consume less power, provide streaming media and data exchange profiles (Cisco has a new WiFi phone). I forsee a time as more connecting technologies move to packet-based networking, that all previously wired connectivity will be based on IP wireless. This will make things like the existing BT moot and although not based on todays WiFi, even PAN will be IP future WiFi based.

wi-fi and profiles? It can be, since it's intende for IP. If you have to implement profiles in IP, it's software and not part of specification. Examples? HTTP, FTP, GOPHER, EMAIL are all "profiles" implemented. VoIP using H.323 is another profile.

Bluetooth and wi-fi are not competitors :hippy: How hard is for people to understand and stop this? The fact is the media needs a battle. MS vs Netscape, Oracle vs DB2, Palm vs Pocket PC.

Bluetooth 2, which is already in the final stages (CSR has finished the chipset building), handles better communication, and implements stereo headset, FYI.

[JonnoB]

In the end.... the existing dominant WiFi (802.11b) and the existing BT do not do enough to cover both spectrums... perhaps neither ever will and that is the point people are making in that they are non-competive standards. I agree that right now they are not.

I see however, a trend to the middle where BT standard is evolving to add bandwidth and other functionality while WiFi development is looking to consume less power and IP technologies looking to provide more tethered functionality.

Think of the MS Smart Displays. They are a monitor with the video cable replaced by a WiFi connection. Why not BT to provide the same service? It is replacing a local wire? Speed. BT just isn't fast enough to replace enough PAN wiring. It cannot replace my firewire, my USB2 devices, or much else. It works for phones because phones are too slow. What about 3G phones? BT as it exists today is too slow to allow for a wireless tether to a PDA to get access to the promised 2Mb+ speeds.

In the end, there will be a wireless standard that covers low-power, close-range, and high-power, longer range services. It will in my opinion, be an IP packet based implementation. IMO, a derivitive of todays WiFi will be the design that wins long-term. It may be called BT 5.0, but it will act a lot more like WiFi does today.

[marlof]

What is the actual range for most bluetooth devices? I haven't ever used it, but am considering it in the future for keyboard/mouse.

10 metres on most devices (called Class 2), 100m on some others (called Class 1).

Personally, I only have Class 2 devices, and use them to:
- connect my Pocket PC to my GPRS mobile phone (Sony Ericsson T610)
- connect my Palm m505 to my GPRS mobile phone
- connect my iBook to my GPRS mobile phone
- sync my mobile phone with my iBook
- sync my Palm m505 with my iBook
- connect my Pocket PC to my Socket Bluetooth GPS unit

I use WiFi for all my WLAN activities. Bluetooth is replacing my short range cables, WiFi my longer range cables.

[JonnoB]

I use WiFi for all my WLAN activities. Bluetooth is replacing my short range cables, WiFi my longer range cables.

What are the plans for BT supporting cables that are short, but high-speed (USB2.0, FireWire, DVI, etc) BT is just too slow right now for anything but simple cable replacement. It works great to connect a phone to a PDA today because it is low power and phones to access data (Internet) are slow... but when new phones become available that are high-speed, BT has to get significantly faster than it is today.

The spread-spectrum, high-data-burst handling capabilities, and range of 802.11b make it considerably more complex, but it is a complexity that the industry is steadily understanding - primarily through the success of WiFi deployment. The basic problem issue with WiFi right now unfolds into cost, real estate, and power consumption, each of which has a major impact on 801.11b application potential, particularly in small form factor devices. With protocol profiling for audio streaming between IP end-points (SIP for example), OBEX over IP, cost-reduction, and low-range power-saving implementations, a technology based on wireless IP will evolve and become the future.

I do not argue that BT and WiFi as they stand today serve different purposes, but I see the minimal overlap today become a major overlap in the future and the IP based wireless infrastructure will win in the end.

[surur]

What is the actual range for most bluetooth devices? I haven't ever used it, but am considering it in the future for keyboard/mouse.

10 metres on most devices (called Class 2), 100m on some others (called Class 1).



Thats class 1 (100m) and class 3 (10m) actually.

On class 1, (which my FSC Loox and my my usb dongle can both do) I can surf the net from my upstairs bedroom connecting to my downstairs pc. Thats at least as good as my wifi card (but of course much slower)

As mentioned before, there is a relation between speed, range and power consumption. For gadgets that have to maintain a connection for a long time (like cell phones or headsets or gps units) running on batteries, bluetooth is the only answer. If its going to be plugged in Wifi is of course better (e.g between PC's )

I also think bluetooth will see much more use than e.g. infra-red got, because people are now creating content on their phones (picture phones) which they now want to share, vs before when only geeks used then to connect to the internet.

Anyways, I think bluetooth's time will soon come, and even in absolute numbers will be USED by many more people (for connecting to other phones, headsets etc) than wifi will (cos much more people have mobile phones (by orders of magnitudes) and they get updated more frequently vs the number of people with pda's and even lap tops)

Surur

[denivan]

all working. Anyone who hasn't been able to get BT to work, just hasn't taken the minute or two to get it working.

Not true at all...My first two devices were my T68i and CF socket card for my iPaq, I had those things working together in no time. Then I got the chance to try out a Siemens BT dongle for my PC. It worked okay with the phone, but it couldn't work together properly with my iPaq. I returned it and asked if I could try out an Anycom BT dongle. I installed it and was Activesyncing over BT in no time, so it really depends on what hardware you buy. In total, BT is fairly good, but it could be easier and it would be nice if all hardware really worked together as a standard (for instance, Microsoft BT dongle, Nokia BT implementation...)

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Why is everyone obsessed with pitting WiFi against Bluetooth?
Totally agreed. Counting which is WiFi and which is Bluetooth doesn't mean anything, IMHO. ;)
Couldn't agree more!

That having been said, if I had to choose one technology to bring with me on the road it would be BT simply because it's useful everywhere I go and it does not drain my PPC & Laptop batteries. I also can carry less accessories with me to make BT useful than I do with WiFi.

Of course when I'm home, WiFi wins everytime.

[iPaqDude]

I agree with PJE - they are complementary, and writers need to quit trying to pit the two technologies against each other.

From a Gartner article:
"There has been considerable confusion as some people have pitted Bluetooth against wireless LAN (WLAN) technology defined by the 802.11 specification because they both operate in the same 2.4GHz industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) bands. In reality Bluetooth and 802.11b are different types of wireless connectivity products that serve different needs and markets. There is some scope for overlap in use, and there is certainly scope for interference between the two. But they are in reality complementary. WLAN technology is ideally suited for campus-area private networks and for high-speed public access in "hot spots" for professional users needing fast access to corporate networks from their laptops. Bluetooth is more suited to supporting personal networks of portable devices such as PDAs, mobile phones and other devices to be connected to nearby print, file and synchronization services as well as to public access services for consumers. (COM-15-1031)"

Kinda says it all....

[PeterLake]

I agree with PJE - they are complementary, and writers need to quit trying to pit the two technologies against each other.


One standard = lower cost. While BT may be better, paying less is the best of all.

[Kati Compton]

One standard = lower cost. While BT may be better, paying less is the best of all.
Only if it's some sort of "sliding" standard that lets you trade off power for range. Otherwise, the one-size-fits all won't fit very well for at least some of the applications of the technology. Like Wifi for a mouse being too over-the-top.

[daS]

I gotta run, but I had to chime in on this one... :wink:

I agree with the others that say that Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are different and do not really complete. To ask which one will sell more is like asking which you have more of: refrigerators or dinner plates?

What?? Only one frig and 12 plates? I guess the dishes are going to replace everything else in your kitchen. :roll:

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Interesting that we always hear about BT failure and WiFi success and yet 1/3 of the respondents say they have just as many if not more BT devices...

While BT is no substitute for WiFi (I agree they are complementary), BT is definitely not as dead as some make it out to be...

[Janak Parekh]

What are the plans for BT supporting cables that are short, but high-speed (USB2.0, FireWire, DVI, etc) BT is just too slow right now for anything but simple cable replacement. It works great to connect a phone to a PDA today because it is low power and phones to access data (Internet) are slow... but when new phones become available that are high-speed, BT has to get significantly faster than it is today.
Agreed. BT v2 will increase speeds to around 10Mbps from what I've heard, and of course, there's UWB (Ultra WideBand) on the horizon, which should be faster than even Wi-Fi.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

One standard = lower cost. While BT may be better, paying less is the best of all.
Only if it's some sort of "sliding" standard that lets you trade off power for range. Otherwise, the one-size-fits all won't fit very well for at least some of the applications of the technology. Like Wifi for a mouse being too over-the-top.
I believe BT does already handle various power levels based on distance.

BTW, from what I've heard, the BT mouse/keyboard solutions do work from an insane distance. If Marlof's 10m metric holds up, that's easily across the room. ;)

--janak

[Kati Compton]

BTW, from what I've heard, the BT mouse/keyboard solutions do work from an insane distance. If Marlof's 10m metric holds up, that's easily across the room. ;)
I'd rather it only work from 5' away, and save the power....

[clinte]

We all live in the same "world". It various in continent. WiFi will be the no 1 networking technology. But there will be more Bluetooth chips shipping. That has to do with the "nature" and certain advantages of the technology. The forrester guys are trying to tell us this. The writer of register is somewhat feeding the BT vs WiFi (when it's BT AND not vs Wifi). There are much more mobile phones outthere for example. WiFi will be more used in everyday life concerning networking. Bluetooth has other advantages (some WiFi hypers/co's are trying to push WiFi as one-size-fits-all-technology: WiFi into headsets etc. and many people are buying it.....wake up dudes!!!!!) like small sized, audio advantage, automatic sync, headset/handsfree function. WHEN DO PEOPLE GET IT??????

Bluetooth v1.2 is set for release september 2003 and v2.0 (4-12mbps) is worked on
http://discussion.brighthand.com/palmhandhelds/showthread.php?s=&postid=193486#post193486

[clinte]

Agreed. BT v2 will increase speeds to around 10Mbps from what I've heard, and of course, there's UWB (Ultra WideBand) on the horizon, which should be faster than even Wi-Fi.
--janak

The UWB hype is doing ok. UWB technology is emerging as both a competitor and complement to other wireless standards like Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. There is no debate that over short distances UWB is able to send larger amounts of data using much less power than competing technologies. For example, 802.11b (Wi-Fi) transmits data at a rate of 11 megabits per second, while UWB transmits data at more than 10 times that speed. Since you need a speed of about 40 megabits per second to send good-quality streaming video, UWB looks like an optimal technology to wirelessly transfer images from, say, a camcorder to a TV.

So UWB is much faster then WiFi within 10m, but speed will decrease fast when it goes beyond the 10m. In February 2002, the FCC issued a Report & Order giving users permission to deploy low powered UWB systems within the 3.1 to 10.6GHz spectrum. These guidelines make UWB suitable for use in relatively short range applications such as wireless personal area networks (WPANs), but not necessarily wireless LANs.

[kaiden.1]

Great responses by everyone.

I have to agree that BT and WiFi are really two separate things. They each have their own place and need. If either one could do it all extremely well then the other might not have ever been developed. I definately see BT moving in a totally different direction than WiFi, yet both in their own applications which will make them very useful to us the consumers. I use WiFi at home with a wireless network and love it. I surf the web with my laptop upstairs while my server is downstairs. I don't have any BT operating at all, but I could see how it could be used much like infra-red is now and not even touch what I'm doing with WiFi. But that doesn't mean either is better. I would never think of doing a BT network for my house!

I think that this battle over one being better is really ridiculous. We will find that over time there will be many different uses evolve for both WiFi and BT that have nothing to do with the other. And guess what? That's OK! They can both co-exist and be just fine! :)

This is one case where you can't just count total units shipped and declare some sort of victory. There may be a Million new BT phones out there but that isn't going to run my in house network now Is it! :lol:

Goodness; someone didn't do their research very well did they? :D

[Skoobouy]

I have never seen a single fact get more overstated. It's almost eerie. Imagine a large crowd of people that walks outside:

"Look, there's a rock on the sidewalk."

"Yes, I agree: there is a rock on the sidewalk."

"How true! That is definitely a rock on the sidewalk."

"Yes, and I don't see how anyone can deny that THAT is a rock on the sidewalk."

"Why doesn't anyone realize that that is a rock on the sidewalk?"

"Has anybody noticed that there is a rock on the sidewalk?"

"Look, everybody--there is a rock on the sidewalk."

Rinse. Lather. Repeat. If I see one more person say, "BT and Wifi are not competing technologies" one more time here... :microwave:

...not that it isn't true. BT and Wifi are not competing technologies. AAAAAHHHH ARGH ARGH ARGH! :wink:

[Will T Smith]

When you have WiFi it is most likely being used. It is almost always an intentional purchase and deployment.

BT on the other hand will be installed on millions of phones and the phone users won't even know about it or care. The promise for pervasive BT is compelling, but it has to work seamlessly to be worthwhile and right now, it just falls flat on its face most of the time. There needs to be a new BT that works.

Yeah, kinda like all the IR trancievers on our PocketPCs. Seriously, Bluetooth is a model that is really showing strength in the marketplace. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on cables every year and Bluetooth is specifically designed to eliminate the need for most of them.

[Will T Smith]

.....what were the guys at Forrester Research perfered drug of choice....crack, coke, or weed?

:twak:

Because it's obvious he was on SOMETHING when he wrote this. BlueTooth has what? A 30' range? End of story. Its a PAN networking method unless you want all your users to huddle around an access point, what a sight!, that won't work.

WIFI has what? To Mars or Jupiter? (Give me a big enough antenna and I'll contact the universe.) Its a WLAN. Its built for range. End of book.

Compairing the two is critically braindead...its like compairing USB2 or FireWire to CAT5.... :roll:

An access point has a good 300' range. For connection models, this is preferred. For cable replacement, 30' is more than enough.

[Will T Smith]

Think of the MS Smart Displays. They are a monitor with the video cable replaced by a WiFi connection. Why not BT to provide the same service? It is replacing a local wire? Speed. BT just isn't fast enough to replace enough PAN wiring. It cannot replace my firewire, my USB2 devices, or much else. It works for phones because phones are too slow. What about 3G phones? BT as it exists today is too slow to allow for a wireless tether to a PDA to get access to the promised 2Mb+ speeds.

In the end, there will be a wireless standard that covers low-power, close-range, and high-power, longer range services. It will in my opinion, be an IP packet based implementation. IMO, a derivitive of todays WiFi will be the design that wins long-term. It may be called BT 5.0, but it will act a lot more like WiFi does today.

Hehe, yes Bluetooth is too slow to replace firewire and USB2.0. Guess what, Wi-Fi is too slow as well ;-)

Stop trying to turn everything into a hammer just because you want just one tool. Reasonable carpenters use wrenches for bolts and don't try to use the claw from their hammer for this task. Likewise, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth have their respective intended market.

For example, you would agree that CAT-5 is ubiquitous right???? WRONG. It's ubiquitous on computers, but I haven't seen ANY integrated CAT-5 connections on portable devices like cell-phones, PDAs, and MP3 players. WHY NOT????? It's not a good fit, beyond the connector issues, their is a question of NEED as well. Most of these devices utilize point-to-point technologies for communication (Serial, USB, IR, Firewire(though firewire is a generic network), etc...).

Likewise Bluetooth and Wi-Fi both have good "FITS". Now Wi-Fi vendors are tweaking the standard in order to produce lower power requirements. However, I GAURUNTEE you that it will NEVER approach BT power efficiency due to the "chatty" nature of the WI-FI protocol.

Perhaps of greater importance, Bluetooth is FAR more secure than Wi-Fi (which isn't secure AT ALL). Theres a reason for this. It's meant for wireless headphones and keyboards. It wouldn't due to have people listening in to your conversations with trivial hardware/software hacks.

The cables themselves will ALWAYS be relevant. Extra high-speed data transmission will NEVER be as efficient in air as it will in cables. Those cables can be copper twisted pair or fiber-optic. The airwaves are simply too noisy to accomodate the same level of bandwidth using the same technologies. Remember, bandwidth is driven by application, not the other way around (in other words you don't make stuff that people don't need and won't buy just because (a lesson for you supply-side (vodoo) economists) ).

Ultimately, I'm sure that these will BOTH be superceeded by more advanced technologies. But I'm also sure that they will DIVERGE in their intended audience instead of CONVERGING. Bluetooth targets embedded communications (basically a replacement for IR (which IS on it's way out if you haven't noticed the high-end RF remote controls out there)). Wi-Fi will target higher bandwidth applications and essentially continue to target a wireless CAT-5 audience.

There is plenty of room for both strategies. I AM sure that I won't EVER see Wi-Fi in remote controls OR cell-phones. I'm equally sure that I'll never see a Wi-Fi enabled mouse or keyboard. Nor do I ever forsee a Wi-Fi headset.

As bluetooth access points become cheaper, I predict that Bluetooth WILL become the lingua franca for the hordes of PDAs out there. Eventually, it will finally be practical to due point-to-point chats on your PDA, or interactive games (look for Bluetooth on Gameboys soon), wireless sync, and finally being able to transmit business cards WITHOUT getting SOOO close.

[Janak Parekh]

BTW, from what I've heard, the BT mouse/keyboard solutions do work from an insane distance. If Marlof's 10m metric holds up, that's easily across the room. ;)
I'd rather it only work from 5' away, and save the power....
Like I alluded to before, BT is smart about power conservation, and I'm pretty sure that closer distances will allow it to consume less power. That said, the big problem with the BT keyboard/mouse is that it's not terribly cheap, and they don't have a natural keyboard version -- otherwise I'd be all over it. (Well, that and the fact that the Logitech MX700 is the best mouse ever, which I'm not giving up yet. :))

--janak

[clinte]

It's good to see some great replies, views and info on Bluetooth from a lot of guys here. Thanx janak, will t, freitasm and others. A year ago the so-called indepth replies were very different. Keep it up guys.

I think we will see more interesting "BT mouse/keyboard" solutions in the future.

"Broadcom last week introduced the BCM2040, a Bluetooth solution that integrates the hardware and software necessary to build a wireless keyboard and mouse system." from 'Bluetooth growth defies criticisms', 19-Jun-2003
http://www.cmpnetasia.com/ViewArt.cfm?Artid=20199&Catid=2&subcat=62

[clinte]

This Forrester report is a little bit short sited the more i read it.

The report focuses on Europe with no information about the rest of the world, and says that Bluetooth will far outstrip Wi-Fi, despite the fact that their uses barely overlap, and thus aren't worth comparing in this context.

The report doesn't look forward. Within a year, most devices that are small enough will have combined co-existent Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.

[hollis_f]

This Forrester report is a little bit short sited the more i read it.

The report focuses on Europe with no information about the rest of the world,

Which makes a change from reading opinions based on experiences within the US voiced as if they apply to the rest of the world (assuming the writer knows of the existence of such a thing).

Of course, neither are correct.

[clinte]

This Forrester report is a little bit short sited the more i read it.

The report focuses on Europe with no information about the rest of the world,

Which makes a change from reading opinions based on experiences within the US voiced as if they apply to the rest of the world (assuming the writer knows of the existence of such a thing).

Of course, neither are correct.

Right on the mark Hollis. Especially when you read the reports and so-called views of tech experts on Bluetooth in the US.

;o)

[daS]

Especially when you read the reports and so-called views of tech experts on Bluetooth in the US.
In fairness to the so-called experts, the US market is about 50% of the total world market for high-tech. While Europe as a whole is also huge, there are often differences in the market from one country to another within Europe that is not seen as much from state-to-state within the USA. For example, France is a huge market for HP's calculators, while sales in the rest of Europe drop off sharply. Also, until the Internet made publications international in scope, writers in the USA had almost no readers in Europe, while reports and articles written in Europe almost never made it to the USA.

Of course, now things are different and I agree that writers should realize the globle market and readership. I try to do this when I write. For example, when I talk about the mobile phone market, I generally point out that CDMA is the market leader in the USA, but not in Europe. I also include distances in both feet/miles and meters/km. And most importantly for me, where appropriate, I note the fact that Bluetooth has gained a much greater market in Europe than it has in the USA (so far. :wink: )

Of course, if I do mess up, I hope that my friends from "across the pond" that read Pocket PC Magaine or www.BluetoothNews.com will point it out to me, but will also understand that I at least make an attempt to get it right. :)