Log in

View Full Version : The Bluetooth Blues


Jason Dunn
08-22-2003, 09:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.infosync.no/news/2002/n/3977.html' target='_blank'>http://www.infosync.no/news/2002/n/3977.html</a><br /><br /></div>"They said 2000 would be the year of Bluetooth. Then they said 2001 would be. Then 2002 was to be the year Bluetooth took off. I don't know who "they" are, but boy were they wrong. It's now 2003, and while we do at long last have Bluetooth products on the market, the potential of Bluetooth is still not being fully utilized. And mostly, it's due to laziness and short-sightedness on the part of the companies making Bluetooth hardware..."

Gen-M
08-22-2003, 09:26 PM
Larry has it right. On two points:

Manufacturers need to support as many profiles as the hardware can support (Headset profile for PPCs anyone?)

Give me a minimal phone with BT to pair (Pair? Network!) with my PPC and BT Headset.

acronym
08-22-2003, 09:38 PM
just so you know - we are going backward with bluetooth. I used to be able to sync via bluetooth, send files back and forth as well as connect to my t68 pretty easily using ppc2002. Now I have 2003 (axim) and I have to make a choice -

sync/cell phone connection using the socket drivers
-- or --
transfer files network using built in microsoft drivers.

currently - I choose sync/cell phone, but sync only works once in awhile before disconnecting. The drivers don't get along, i'm using sockets ppc2003 drivers and the connectivity tab on my axim shows no bluetooth available, I get a device manager error everytime I start up. But I can connect using the socket bluetooth icon.

oh, and it is definately much slower email/web browsing with ppc2003

yes, I understand that this is probably sockets fault - but the fact is, the ppc2003 driver was released and it doesn't work properly

Bandito
08-22-2003, 09:47 PM
I would tend to agree.

&lt;rant>

When I got my first Bluetooth headset, I thought "Great! Now I can use it with my cell phone, VoIP apps on my Pocket PC and PSTN calls on my PC using a voice modem!"... only to realize that virtually all of the headsets currently on the market only support one partner. This is the OEMs saying to us "You only need to use your headset with your cell phone. Why would you ever want to use it with another device when you have a CELL PHONE?!". Oh, and did I mention that the big manufacturers of Bluetooth headsets also manufacture, um, cell phones?

What about the HID Profile? Wouldn't this be GREAT on cell phones, PDAs, and anything else with a less-than-perfect text entry method? Yet how many of these devices support the HID profile? As far as I know, ZERO. How many keyboards are there that support the HID Profile? One that I'm aware of, and it's a full-size keyboard. Not something that could be easily carried with your cell phone.

And Activesync... wonderful Activesync. I configure it to listen on COM4 (my Bluetooth COM port), but when I cradle my device (USB), Activesync inevitably decides to reset this COM port to COM1. What happens next time I try to connect via Bluetooth? Absolutely nothing. Is this Bluetooth's fault? I don't think so, but from a user perspective it's DEFINITELY Bluetooth's fault, because when you take Bluetooth out of the picture it works again.

I'm not even going to talk about software support and what a developer must do if he wants to write a "generic" Bluetooth application. For a good explanation check out the thread at http://www.bluetoothnews.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=94 .

&lt;/rant>

... but I digress. I've had great visions for Bluetooth, but without the hardware/OEM support they are just that, visions. I don't want to say that the situation might be better if MS had embraced Bluetooth more, but I'm not going to backspace it either :wink:

mjhamson
08-22-2003, 09:57 PM
I am a HUGE fan of Bluetooth. I will not buy a phone or pda without it. However, I am beginning to realize that Bluetooth is destined to die a slow, but unseen death.

I blame the ODM/OEMs for this! As well as for the BT leadership. While the protocol/standards are there... there is no uniformity in ensuring that the device manufactures play with BT in the same way.

Case in point is when someone tries to establish Dial-up networking over GPRS. Each phone manufacture has different ways in which to establish the "hand-shaking" that is required to establish the connection. As a result, consumers must fumble through configurations and spend hours on cue for tech-support escalation.

Exacerbation of the situation also occurs when you consider the fact that the Bluetooth receivers can be either single layer or multi layer. Not to mention the fact that the ODM/OEM drives might not contain all the different uses of Bluetooth within their software. So while some will offer Personal Network Client support, no one is offering the server support.

It truly is a mess!

On the positive side, I think as we become more and more wireless, the need for a strong (stringent) standard will emerge. One that offers a good bandwidth with ultra low power consumption.

JonathanWardRogers
08-22-2003, 11:12 PM
&lt;rant>And Activesync... wonderful Activesync. I configure it to listen on COM4 (my Bluetooth COM port), but when I cradle my device (USB), Activesync inevitably decides to reset this COM port to COM1. What happens next time I try to connect via Bluetooth? Absolutely nothing. Is this Bluetooth's fault? I don't think so, but from a user perspective it's DEFINITELY Bluetooth's fault, because when you take Bluetooth out of the picture it works again.
&lt;/rant>


Actually, this happens with IR also. ActiveSync resets the COM port back to COM 1! :evil:
However, while IR sync works as reliably as (albeit much slower than) USB, Bluetooth sync drops on any large file transfers. Consistently. :twak: Come on, Microsoft, get it together!

Sorry, vacating :soapbox: now.

Jon

freitasm
08-22-2003, 11:25 PM
I've read the article last night (yep, it was night in New Zealand when the Infosync newsletter came out) and noticed the author lists things in a way that don't reflect reality.

For example he complains about having to use third party to connect the Palm to the network using a Serial connection. I've sent an e-mail pointing that this is not the case, since the LAN Access can be used (and I used it since the first Palm with Bluetooth I had a few years ago).

Hmmm... No reply but no surprise.

Overall I agree with the rest of the article. I actually posted a rant about this in one of our discussions before.

QYV
08-23-2003, 12:52 AM
YES!!!

Someone finally gets it. Give me a Bluetooth dumb phone! There's a reason I'm carrying around a Pocket PC, you know!

(now that T-Mobile's offering the Nokia 3650 for free I don't care as much, but what a waste of hardware...)

mv
08-23-2003, 04:53 AM
"Here's what I want from a Bluetooth-based phone: A dumb phone. Not a smartphone, a dumb phone."

This guy is SO right! Why do we need a smartphone if our PDA´s can do everything well? we just need a phone to make calls and surf the web with GPRS and BT, but we don´t need a lot of games onto the phone!

willowpc
08-23-2003, 12:45 PM
Bluetooth for the masses may be a while off, but don't agree that it's getting worse not better. Com ports are only an issue with activesync and even this is getting more usable (up to WM2003 I always had to run get connected on my Thinkpad before syncing to a 3970; with a new 5555 I am able to sync directly from the pda almost all the time). Also, grant its very expensive, but my tiny new digital bluespoon headset has incredibly clear reception with noise canceling, and pairs to up to 3 devices. I have a T68 phone as primary with the 5555 as secondary. Sometimes have to reset the headset after using the PDA pairing (still haven't figured this out exactly) but its very usable. Agree that the phone doesn't need to have pictures and photos, but options like voice dialing and a speakerphone are still attractive. There are a bunch of new bluetooth technology uses about to come out also (even saw a samsonite preview yesterday for a briefcase with built in bluetooth). I know I'm a lot better off with bluetooth than without, and most people don't know what they're missing.

bitbank
08-23-2003, 04:10 PM
Personally, I don't think Bluetooth 1.1 solves any problem particularly well except maybe printer/mouse cable replacement.

From a programmer's point of view, I have been waiting for several years to be able to program bluetooth support into my applications without having to write code for a proprietary (per manufacturer) SDK. Finally with the release of Windows CE 4.x, bluetooth support is integrated properly into the operating system through WinSock. This allows programs to treat it as a special case network (which it is). But nooooooo it's not that simple. Each device manufacturer does not have to use the Microsoft winsock interface and can define their own. Enter HP - the largest single vendor of Windows CE devices and guess what they did? They don't support the MS standard way of communicating with bluetooth and instead decided to use WidComm's proprietary interface. Net result - I refuse to pay $1400 for their SDK and have my applications only work on widcomm hardware. SHAME ON HP FOR MAKING SUCH A SHORTSIGHTED DECISION. Watch how few bluetooth-aware apps get written for the iPAQ devices.

I see bluetooth following the footsteps of IrDA and relegating itself to a much smaller audience than they had hoped for. Simple setup and interoperability are where it fails so miserably.

e.g. I just got a new HP2215 and it took trying 2 different USB dongles and lots of configuration changes and restarts to get bluetooth LAN and Sync working. I then plugged in my Symbol 802.11 card and got it connected to my LAN in literally 10 seconds with a single dialog box!

Larry B.

Sven Johannsen
08-23-2003, 06:05 PM
Personally, I don't think Bluetooth 1.1 solves any problem particularly well except maybe printer/mouse cable replacement.


But that is what it is for...and keyboard cable replacement, and headset cable replacement, and sync cable replacement, and PDA to Cell phone cable replacement, etc. I didn't think it was meant to be a networking technology. Certainly it can be used as such, but that seems to me to be part of what is adding to the complexity that is making it less transparent than it should be. If I want to network my PPC wirelessly, that is what WiFi is for. If I want to get super battery life out of WiFi, all I have to do is reduce the output power, which will limit the throughput and range (sounds like BT doesn't it?). One of the complaints you seem to hear about BT is the short range and low datarate. Disregarding the standard for a moment, you can enhance the range by increasing the output power. Data rate as well can be enhanced with increased power demand being a side effect. So technically you could get the same distance/throughput out of BT as WiFi, but you would wind up with considerably more power consumption; so what have you gained over WiFi.

If I want to surf the net via BT, I can still get that effect by using the sync cable replacement mode, establishing my AS connection and using pass-through. That works as well on my 2215 as establishing a network connection to my PC and using the sharing capabilities of the PC.

They are complimentary technologies, not competing ones (there's a revelation), manufacturers and consumers should quite asking them to get into the other's space and let them each do what they are designed (or intended) to do.

JMHO

Warwick
08-24-2003, 12:32 AM
I will back BitBank all the way there, I am dissapointed that this is the case. If not for the widcom stuff I would have at least a few bluetooth apps already. Shame HP Shame, with all the apps supporting it then uses would support it as well and it would thrive.[/quote]

petvas
08-24-2003, 12:47 AM
For me, Bluetooth is great. I really love it!!! It doesn't work always as it should do, but it is a life saver!!!
I use Bluetooth to connect to my email and Exchange Active Sync. I use Bluetooth to surf the Internet and read PocketPCThoughts!!! I use Bluetooth for File Transfer with other devices...
I had many problems configuring it at the past (with various manufacters) but Bluetooth is still great. It gives freedom of movement and it is not as power hungry as Wifi is...
Day by day it gets better...
Of course there are still many issues and I would like to see:
* Microsoft to implement Bluetooth support for Windows XP in a standard way
* All Motherboard manufacters to start integrating Bluetooth devices on their motherboards
* All BIOS manufacters to offer native Bluetooth support
* Activesync to implement native Bluetooth support

If all these happen, Bluetooth will be an even bigger success!!!
Of course Mobiles should also have Bluetooth!!! I hate NOKIA for not including Bluetooth in most devices they make... :devilboy:

hollis_f
08-24-2003, 06:21 AM
"Here's what I want from a Bluetooth-based phone: A dumb phone. Not a smartphone, a dumb phone."

This guy is SO right! Why do we need a smartphone if our PDA´s can do everything well? we just need a phone to make calls and surf the web with GPRS and BT, but we don´t need a lot of games onto the phone!
Yup, that's why, for the first time in many years, I've not 'upgraded' my phone this year. I use an Ericsson T39m. It doesn't have a colour screen. It doesn't have the London Symphony Orchestra playing the ring tone. It doesn't have Quake III on it. It doesn't have any sort of camera built-in (thankfully, otherwise I'd not be allowed to take it into work!).

But it is very small. It works perfectly with a BT headset. It's fantastic for GPRS over Bluetooth.

ppcsurfr
08-25-2003, 02:05 AM
What is wrong with Bluetooth?

It's more open than it is standardized.

If you read the BT articles of the SIG, I think it states which profiles are required... most of the profiles we need are not included in it as standard profiles...

For one... If you get a BT CF card for the PPC, you have a choice whether to get the Socket, Ambicom, Anycom, Billionton (which uses the WidComm drivers) or any other CF card out there... but what are the features supported? Not all and surprisingly I found myself owning a BT card that doesn't even support COM ports and the FAX profiile! Now that sucks!

What is really needed is some way of standardizing it and raising the bar as to which profiles are required right away... my opinion... ALL profiles available now should be supported and not just the so few each manufacturer chooses.

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

ppcsurfr
08-25-2003, 02:14 AM
&lt;snip> Enter HP - the largest single vendor of Windows CE devices and guess what they did? They don't support the MS standard way of communicating with bluetooth and instead decided to use WidComm's proprietary interface. Net result - I refuse to pay $1400 for their SDK and have my applications only work on widcomm hardware. SHAME ON HP FOR MAKING SUCH A SHORTSIGHTED DECISION. Watch how few bluetooth-aware apps get written for the iPAQ devices.

Well, I've seen other PPCs run on the Widcomm drivers too... the Billionton CF BT Card runs on the Widcomm driver.

I think HP made a wise decision on this part... With the original drivers, there was no support for BT sending out of Business Cards... at least with the Widcomm drivers, I can send out contacts, calendar and other stuff via BT. I think Widcomm has good BT drivers... better than most out there... I think Billionton should take this opportunity to come in and make the most of it while they have HP too... What is needed is uniformity in services offered... if you check the others... they don't offer much.

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

nikosf
08-29-2003, 08:02 PM
Well I don't know much about what it takes to develop software for BT and all the issues with drivers.

All I know is that as a USER, I think BT is great. I use it to connect my 3970 iPAQ to my Sony-E T68i to d/load email and browse the web. Works seamlessly. I also use it to connect my iPAQ to my BT GPS which makes for a great tidy solution in the car.

Someone mentioned that it's only a cord replacement - well that's just fine with me. I can connect to my phone with it in my trouser pocket and not have to battle with cords or IR. And in the car I just need to put a discrete little box on my dash and not have wires running back and forth.