Wireless USB Draws Near

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/idf-2005-wireless-usb-demo-038936.php">http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/idf-2005-wireless-usb-demo-038936.php</a><br /><br /><i>"At the Intel Developer Forum Japan 2005, a couple companies conducted demonstrations of an interesting new technology — Wireless USB. The fun part about Wireless USB is the transfer rate, with the same maximum 480Mbps speed as USB 2.0. Add to this the fact that existing USB 2.0 products can be converted to Wireless USB products with adapters, and you’re almost ready for obsolete technology."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/04/11/wirelessusb/index.php">MacWorld has additional info</a>. Personally, I am hoping this will replace Bluetooth and its non-consumer friendly mix of profiles. I just hope OEMs don't get the idea that we need a <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3207">really bright annoying flashing LED</a> to let us know that wireless USB is working.

[surur]

I hope you realise that if this is meant to be a drop-in replacement for wired USB it would mean you need a specific driver for most hardware e.g instead of the Basic Print Profile you will need an Epson or HP driver, and they will not necessarily make one for pocketpc's. Another example is the A2D profile, which hides a huge amount of complexity behind a very simple interface.

I think our illusion of the plug-and-play nirvana of USB is due to the mono-culture of windows desktops. I'm sure many Linux users can attest to the frustration of being able to plug in your web cam, or USB sound card, and it not working. I have nothing against wireless USB, but i would prefer that the current bluetooth implementation continue to mature, as USB did, so bluetooth can continue to deliver on its promise of broad device interoperability.

Surur

[daS]

Personally, I am hoping this will replace Bluetooth and its non-consumer friendly mix of profiles.
8O Wow, now that's a surprise. - NOT - :roll:

Keep in mind that in place of the "non-consumer friendly mix of profiles" that Bluetooth has, Wireless USB will need the very Pocket PC unfriendly mix of hundreds of megabytes of drivers. There's a very good reason we don't see USB host features on Pocket PCs: no drivers! When Toshiba offered USB host, there was very little you could do with it due to the lack of drivers.

The nice thing about Bluetooth is that there are standards that eliminate the need for device-specific drivers. Of course, there is still a great need for improvement in the implementation of Bluetooth. But the concept of not needing to have a custom driver for every model of printer, GPS receiver, headset, etc. is vastly better for mobile device hosts like Pocket PCs. What good would Wireless USB printing be if the specific printer driver is not on your device when you encounter one? :(

[bcries]

Wouldn't it be possible for mobile devices to employ a single set of "profile" drivers for USB devices - sort of like "Bluetooth-over-USB" (I'm thinking of PPPoE-like protocol encapsulation)? In fact, isn't this already offered through a few generic usb "HID-class" drivers?

It does seem like the new wUSB will offer a significant speed boost. Let's remember that many bluetooth devices (i.e. keyboards) STILL have extra software that you need to install on your pocket pc, presumably to provide functionality that isn't offered through the general profile. It seems to me that the only thing "restrictive" about the BT profile system is angry ipaq owners who want to use a wireless headset, but don't have an extensible BT stack.

Bluetooth comes with default profiles. USB comes with default drivers. Both seem to require specialized software for specialized devices (or is every BT device easy to set up in linux)? The key difference would be that entirely new kinds of devices require a manufacturer's update to the BT stack... while new kinds of wUSB devices would just require an extra driver, installed by the user.

Anything that moves extensibility control out of firmware and into the users' hands is good in my books. Isn't that part of bringing the "PC in your pocket" paradigm to life - as opposed to "appliance with fixed BT"?

[beq]

What's the underlying wireless technology/protocol being used for Wireless USB? For some reason in my mind I had Wireless USB and ultrawideband linked...

Also what about the "Wireless 1394" development I'd heard in the past too, how does it compare?

[Fred44]

I wonder if the USB Implementers Forum (www.usb.org) is involved in defining the spec for wireless USB. If every vendor uses there own proprietary wireless technology for there product, devices from different manufactures will not communicate. Wireless USB is where Bluetooth was 5 years ago. As posted before vendors of hardware would have to start creating drivers for cell phones and PDA’s so there product can interface with them. I wonder if there will be an option to install the driver from the peripheral to the host because most cell phones do not have method to install drivers. A lot still needs to be defined. The Bluetooth spec was designed from the bottom up not to use drivers, BT uses universal profiles that every vendor complies to. I do not see Wireless USB in my life in the next 5 years..

[gorkon280]

Personally, I am hoping this will replace Bluetooth and its non-consumer friendly mix of profiles.
8O Wow, now that's a surprise. - NOT - :roll:

Keep in mind that in place of the "non-consumer friendly mix of profiles" that Bluetooth has, Wireless USB will need the very Pocket PC unfriendly mix of hundreds of megabytes of drivers. There's a very good reason we don't see USB host features on Pocket PCs: no drivers! When Toshiba offered USB host, there was very little you could do with it due to the lack of drivers.

The nice thing about Bluetooth is that there are standards that eliminate the need for device-specific drivers. Of course, there is still a great need for improvement in the implementation of Bluetooth. But the concept of not needing to have a custom driver for every model of printer, GPS receiver, headset, etc. is vastly better for mobile device hosts like Pocket PCs. What good would Wireless USB printing be if the specific printer driver is not on your device when you encounter one? :(

Well, yes and no. Keyboards worked out of the box. Mice and Hard Drives both worked with a hack. Keyspan released a USB-Serial cable that has a honest to god driver for PocketPC. So I would not say there are no drivers. There are some, but I agree, there can in no way be support for everything that our desktops support.

I personally see no use for Wireless USB once Bluetooth un-kludges itself. I have had good luck recently and been able to get Bluetooth to work on both my work Thinkpad and my Powerbook as well as my Pocket PC. I don't have a Bluetooth printer, yet, but I plan on getting one for my office at some point(not a priority...gotta get Mac OS X Tiger first! ;) ).

[gorkon280]

I wonder if the USB Implementers Forum (www.usb.org) is involved in defining the spec for wireless USB. If every vendor uses there own proprietary wireless technology for there product, devices from different manufactures will not communicate. Wireless USB is where Bluetooth was 5 years ago. As posted before vendors of hardware would have to start creating drivers for cell phones and PDA’s so there product can interface with them. I wonder if there will be an option to install the driver from the peripheral to the host because most cell phones do not have method to install drivers. A lot still needs to be defined. The Bluetooth spec was designed from the bottom up not to use drivers, BT uses universal profiles that every vendor complies to. I do not see Wireless USB in my life in the next 5 years..

Most cellphone just embed a USB-Serial chip somewhere(in the phone or the cable) or do develop their own protocol. I saw a Motorola phone with a mini b USB connector on the bottom. That's outstanding because if they don't include it, one can just hit up any office supply store that carries computer products and get one of these or get one off e-bay for a penny (plus 8 bucks shipping....).

[surur]

I saw a Motorola phone with a mini b USB connector on the bottom. That's outstanding because if they don't include it, one can just hit up any office supply store that carries computer products and get one of these or get one off e-bay for a penny (plus 8 bucks shipping....).

Useless (accept for charging) however to synchronise your contacts without the driver CD.

Surur

[Fred44]

I wonder if there will be an option to install the driver from the peripheral to the host because most cell phones do not have method to install drivers.
Most cellphone just embed a USB-Serial chip somewhere (in the phone or the cable) or do develop their own protocol.
If you go out and buy a wireless USB headset to interface with your Mot phone are you saying that you should connect a wired USB cable to the phone from a PC to install the driver for the headset? Consumers will never do that. That’s way to much work.

If you have a Mot phone with Bluetooth today and bought any wireless Bluetooth headset you can press a button on the headset and it pairs with the phone and then works all the time never needing drivers.

If Wireless USB moves to a profile based interface things might work but why wait for that use Bluetooth today.

[Jason Dunn]

Bluetooth has had many years to develop into a mature, robust technology that's also consumer friendly. It has, for the most part, failed to be consumer friendly. So I say bring on the wireless USB and maybe someone will "win" and we'll have a good product in the end...

[powder2000]

I have never had any problems with bluetooth on my ppc or se phone. I have had some issues with a bluetooth usb adapter on windows, but that was because when I installed the driver, I clicked for it to replace my network connection through our lan. Really, bluetooth has been good to me.

[surur]

Bluetooth has had many years to develop into a mature, robust technology that's also consumer friendly. It has, for the most part, failed to be consumer friendly. So I say bring on the wireless USB and maybe someone will "win" and we'll have a good product in the end...

Bluetooth GPS units work really well, and are popular. Bluetooth headsets are being given away with many many cell phones in UK (any person in UK can confirm this) Many people are using bluetooth keyboards with their pocketpc's.

Userfriendliness is a problem with all computer tech. As soon as you have to worry about security things start becoming more unfriendly immediately. You cant blame bluetooth for that. If wireless USB will not secure my keystrokes so some-one can record my password from the next house for the sake of user friendliness I believe we will have a real problem.

Surur

[daS]

Bluetooth has had many years to develop into a mature, robust technology that's also consumer friendly. It has, for the most part, failed to be consumer friendly. So I say bring on the wireless USB and maybe someone will "win" and we'll have a good product in the end...
Well USB and Wi-Fi have also had many years - more in fact than Bluetooth - yet I still have problems with some USB devices that just stop working (Pocket PCs on ActiveSync for example. :roll: ) And I can't count how many bad Wi-Fi access points I have used that just drop connections, fail to work with specific notebooks, WAP key generators (from alpha phases) that are incompatable, etc, etc. We have all just elected to accept the poor state of "user friendliness" of USB and Wi-Fi and claim they work - regardless of their poor reliability.

[gibson042]

Not to be a party pooper, but there is another very significant concern for those who want to see wireless USB on their mobile devices: power consumption. The 480 Mbps standard will not be at all kind to batteries, although not as harsh as WiFi (which is only 11 Mbps, but guzzles power due to its long range nature). From An introduction to Wireless USB (WUSB) (http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT9015145687.html):

The power target for WUSB radio will be introduced at less than 300 mW and drive to a target of 100 mW over time.
For comparitive purposes, Bluetooth Class 1 (its longest-range power class, with an expected range of 100 m) already has a maximum power output of 100 mW, with the PDA-level Class 2 (10 m) outputting 2.5 mW or less. So wireless USB will initially consume about 120 times more power than Bluetooth, eventually/hopefully ramping down to only 40 times more power. Those of you who already complain about the effects of Bluetooth on your battery life would be well-advised to consider this fact before jumping on the bandwagon.

[surur]

Wow. Does this mean wireless usb wont be coming to keyboards and mice?

Surur

[gibson042]

Wow. Does this mean wireless usb wont be coming to keyboards and mice?
Interesting question. This page (http://www.vhk.nl/fe/FE_Input_Devices.pdf) claims that a (proprietary non-Bluetooth RF) wireless keyboard and mouse, considered together, use 56-172 mW of power. It is my guess that they will be available in WUSB, but I don't know at what power level. The standard operates as Ultra Wideband, but I think it is still technically possible to sacrifice range for power savings (although one must be even more mindful of the signal-to-noise ratio). What I don't know is whether this is allowed. From what I've read and what seems logical, I expect that client hardware will be allowed to operate at lower power but host hardware will not in order to adhere to the standard.

[gwinter]

I've experienced the "consumer unfriendly" nature of Bluetooth and was looking forward to wireless USB for a change. However, upon further reflection, I would say that they are different. Not necessarily better, or worse. Let me try to explain.

It helps to know where the standards comes from. For example 802.11 originates from the computing industry. I doubt many know this, but there is a rival European standard called HIPERLAN. For whatever reason, it never really took off. But what is interesting here is that HIPERLAN originates from the telecommunication industry. Thus from the beginning HIPERLAN was designed to contain features such as synchronous/asynchronous transfer and QoS.

Bluetooth also has its root in the telecommunication industry, specifically from handset makers (think Ericsson, although their core business was/is telecom equipment). Therefore the initial target has been to embed Bluetooth in handsets in order to support cordless hands-free kit for example. Wireless USB, on the other hand, is coming from the computing industry. Despite touting wUSB as a solution for connecting diverse devices (for example connecting set-top boxes to HDTV), I believe the initial target is always on the traditional computer systems.

For Bluetooth it make sense to use profiles, because in a handset-headset scenario, you want all the necessary drivers to be already on-board. The drivers should be considered fixed and non-upgradable once the devices come off production, and they must work with other devices that are developed later. The profile system ensure that devices do implement a certain profile will be able to interoperate. I do not know how wUSB will work, but I assume that is somewhat like the current USB, i.e. make a connection and install driver. In this case you will need to supply a driver (or maybe a generic driver is available from the OS).

So for Bluetooth, you don't need to supply a driver for every device, since generic drivers are built-in. But what if you need new functionality? Take for example the new Bluetooth stereo headphone. You need the A2D profile. Your bluetooth dongle on desktop is fully capable of supporting this in hardware, but its Bluetooth stack has not been updated. You are now at the mercy of the vendor to supply you with a new Bluetooth stack. At the moment I do not think many vendors do that, seeing how people are hacking generic Widcomm stack upgrade in order to make it useable on their system.

But what about wUSB? If you don't have a driver for the device, you can't use it. You are at the mercy of the vendor to supply a driver. Admittedly a vendor will sell a device with the appropriate driver, at least for Windows system, so it would appear to have an edge over Bluetooth. But I'm sure at least some of us have had the frustration of abandoning a device after upgrading Windows or switching over to other OS because no new drivers are available. So is this better than Bluetooth? I do not know but I don't think so.

[Paragon]

The advantage I see for wireless USB over Bluetooth is that if I buy a piece of hardware that is wireless USB and I don't have a driver, there's a good chance the manufacturer included one on the CD in the box. :idea: At the moment with Bluetooth (provided I can get it to work) if I don't have the right profile I'm screwed!

I think Bluetooth would have a better name for itself in the Windows Mobile community if Microsoft and its partners got together, took a look at all the different Bluetooth devices being used now or in the near future and built a standard set of profiles to be included in every device....In reality I guess that's likely a bit of a dream, since MS and Braodcom develop competing BT stacks.

Dave

[gorkon280]

If you go out and buy a wireless USB headset to interface with your Mot phone are you saying that you should connect a wired USB cable to the phone from a PC to install the driver for the headset? Consumers will never do that. That’s way to much work.

If you have a Mot phone with Bluetooth today and bought any wireless Bluetooth headset you can press a button on the headset and it pairs with the phone and then works all the time never needing drivers.

If Wireless USB moves to a profile based interface things might work but why wait for that use Bluetooth today.

Not all phones will sync over the BT. Just look at the Motorola v710.

No, what I am saying is most cellphones (remember, not all phones have BT in them...in fact a majority of them do not in the US) that have data cables use a USB-Serial cables or chips in the phone. Less problems with compatibility for the ones that do this. Not saying all of them do. No I am not suggesting you load a driver into the cellphone to use the BT headset although allowing firmware updating (could happen via OBEX xfer over BT or a proprietary interface or via USB cable) so that you could update your stack or add profiles would not be a bad idea.

[Ed Hansberry]

Well USB and Wi-Fi have also had many years - more in fact than Bluetooth - yet I still have problems with some USB devices that just stop working (Pocket PCs on ActiveSync for example. :roll: )
Not sure it is fair to criticize USB for a product that is built on a 6+ year old program that was designed to spoof a serial port through RAS services and has now been all wrapped up inside a USB driver. I've had AS blow chunks on IR, bluetooth and WAN/WIFI connections. That is AS for you.

[Ed Hansberry]

The advantage I see for wireless USB over Bluetooth is that if I buy a piece of hardware that is wireless USB and I don't have a driver, there's a good chance the manufacturer included one on the CD in the box. :idea: At the moment with Bluetooth (provided I can get it to work) if I don't have the right profile I'm screwed!
Agreed. :werenotworthy:

[Fred44]

Not all phones will sync over the BT. Just look at the Motorola v710.
If a phone manufacture decides not to allow the phone they created to sync over Bluetooth or over any other standard that has nothing to do with the standard. It’s the company that makes the phone that decides if they want their product to perform that function.

No I am not suggesting you load a driver into the cellphone to use the BT headset although allowing firmware updating (could happen via OBEX xfer over BT or a proprietary interface or via USB cable) so that you could update your stack or add profiles would not be a bad idea.
That is not what I posted at all.

If you go out and buy a wireless USB headset to interface with your Mot phone are you saying that you should connect a wired USB cable to the phone from a PC to install the driver for the headset? Consumers will never do that. That’s way to much work.
Bluetooth does not use drivers they use profiles. If you own a Bluetooth phone it will at the very minimum have a headset profile in the phone. No drivers needed.

Some providers disable all Bluetooth functionality except the headset profile so they can charge people to send pics to a PC over the providers network. They can not charge people for sending them over Bluetooth to a PC so they disable the function. It’s not Bluetooth’s fault again.

[jimski]

I will not try to show any bias here :twisted: but I cringe when I have to connect any device to my USB ports. I have had more problems with USB across multiple machines and devices than I have every had with Bluetooth, Serial, Parallel, etc.

Has anyone ever successfully stacked two or more 4 port USB hubs together. Mine worked for about 5 days and then poof, no connections. I have a shopping bag (really, I do) of USB hubs sitting next to my desk that proved to be incompatible for one reason or another. And if you can connect 100+ devices to USB, why are 5+ port hubs so rare? I have two USB ports on my laptop. I all my devices insist on NOT porting through a hub, how do I connect 5 devices at the same time? And why is it that I can plug a device into my top USB port one time and then the bottom one the next time and the machine recognizes the device as being "new" all over again.

Sure, Wireless USB should theoretically solve some of the issues above, but if this new technology is based on the same platform, from a PC point of view, then I will just have to wait and see.

By contrast, Bluetooth has pretty much done what I have asked it to do. This may partly be because I don't think BT was made for PC's (laptops included). I think BT is, and will continue to be, a big part of mobile devices. No, the road has not been perfect, but it is getting there. Hopefully Ed will get to sit in a car with built-in BT or a Moto Professional BT Handsfree kit installed. Only then can one appreciate this truly amazing technology.

[Paragon]

The advantage I see for wireless USB over Bluetooth is that if I buy a piece of hardware that is wireless USB and I don't have a driver, there's a good chance the manufacturer included one on the CD in the box. :idea: At the moment with Bluetooth (provided I can get it to work) if I don't have the right profile I'm screwed!
Agreed. :werenotworthy:

I figured you'd like that, Ed. ;)

[Paragon]

I will not try to show any bias here :twisted: but I cringe when I have to connect any device to my USB ports. I have had more problems with USB across multiple machines and devices than I have every had with Bluetooth, Serial, Parallel, etc.

Has anyone ever successfully stacked two or more 4 port USB hubs together. Mine worked for about 5 days and then poof, no connections. I have a shopping bag (really, I do) of USB hubs sitting next to my desk that proved to be incompatible for one reason or another. And if you can connect 100+ devices to USB, why are 5+ port hubs so rare? I have two USB ports on my laptop. I all my devices insist on NOT porting through a hub, how do I connect 5 devices at the same time? And why is it that I can plug a device into my top USB port one time and then the bottom one the next time and the machine recognizes the device as being "new" all over again.

Sure, Wireless USB should theoretically solve some of the issues above, but if this new technology is based on the same platform, from a PC point of view, then I will just have to wait and see.

By contrast, Bluetooth has pretty much done what I have asked it to do. This may partly be because I don't think BT was made for PC's (laptops included). I think BT is, and will continue to be, a big part of mobile devices. No, the road has not been perfect, but it is getting there. Hopefully Ed will get to sit in a car with built-in BT or a Moto Professional BT Handsfree kit installed. Only then can one appreciate this truly amazing technology.

Dude, that's quite amazing. It appears you have had almost ever conceivable USB problem that most people never have, yet you have never had any of the problems with the Bluetooth that most people do have. I wish I had your luck. :)

Dave

[surur]

Dude, that's quite amazing. It appears you have had almost ever conceivable USB problem that most people never have, yet you have never had any of the problems with the Bluetooth that most people do have. I wish I had your luck. :)

Dave

I disagree. Ive had plenty of problems, both USB and bluetooth. Tell me you have never had a problem with windows detecting a new device when you just change USB ports. How about having to plug a device straight into your computer USB ports instead of a hub, else it wont work reliably? (or have you never flashed the rom on your pocketpc yet). I eventually got frustrated with my USB adsl modem (the notorious speedtouch stingray) constantly bluescreening my xp box, and moved to an adsl pci card which worked great. My USB multiple memory card reader is incredibly flaky, and constantly disappears from my system.

Please admit that you had at least SOME problems with USB. I think you will find it's quite normal.

Surur

[Paragon]

Please admit that you had at least SOME problems with USB. I think you will find it's quite normal.

Surur

I have no problems admitting to minor problems with USB.....as well as not so minor with Bluetooth. My point was simply that I think it is very rare that someone has significant problems with USB, and almost none with Bluetooth....Surur, please admit you would agree with that? ;) :)

[surur]

I agree. Bluetooth, the newer technology, will have more problems. However I think we tend to blame USB problems on the device, while blaming problems with a bluetooth device on bluetooth.

The speedtouch adsl modem problem is a good example. I dont think the current supplied by USB was not sufficient to power the modem reliably. I was constantly swapping peripherals to other ports to stop it from disconnecting.

No tech is bulletproof, and as soon as you make it wireless you complicate things even more. Wireless USB wont be nirvana.

Surur

[Paragon]

Yikes! I think we are in agreement. 8O

[surur]

Yikes! I think we are in agreement. 8O

Reasonable people can always find agreement. :) My most recent bluetooth disaster was when I bought the very nice jabra bt800 headset to use with my very nice SE V800 cellphone. It was about $150, and I had no reason to suspect it would not work. Yet it just did not, and the jabra website declared they were incompatible. No reason given and no possibility to fix it. I gave it to my wife, to use with her SE T610, and works perfectly with that.

Anyways, I'm willing to put up with the growing pains due to the great functionality and low power usage which allows me to keep it on all the time on my phone.

Surur

[gibson042]

Bluetooth does not use drivers they use profiles. If you own a Bluetooth phone it will at the very minimum have a headset profile in the phone. No drivers needed.

Some providers disable all Bluetooth functionality except the headset profile so they can charge people to send pics to a PC over the providers network. They can not charge people for sending them over Bluetooth to a PC so they disable the function. It’s not Bluetooth’s fault again.
True, but the Bluetooth SIG could have set up something like "profile collections" that would have eliminated the confusion people now have about just what their Bluetooth-enabled products are capable of. For example, the Mobile Phone Collection 1.0 could have included Serial Port, Headset, Dial-up Networking, Generic Object Exchange, and Object Push Profiles; version 1.1 could have added Hands-Free and File Transfer Profiles. A Media Collection 1.0 could include File Transfer, Audio/Video Remote Control, Advanced Audio Distribution, and Video Distribution Profiles. A PC Collection 1.0 could include... well, you get the idea.

You're right, the problem lies with mobile phone companies and not with the Bluetooth SIG. But the problem never needed to exist. I know what you're thinking: hindsight is always 20/20. However, there is nothing to prevent the introduction of such a concept now, to fix the problem that does exist. Maybe WUSB will be the added motivation they need.

[gibson042]

I will not try to show any bias here :twisted: but I cringe when I have to connect any device to my USB ports. I have had more problems with USB across multiple machines and devices than I have every had with Bluetooth, Serial, Parallel, etc.

Has anyone ever successfully stacked two or more 4 port USB hubs together. Mine worked for about 5 days and then poof, no connections. I have a shopping bag (really, I do) of USB hubs sitting next to my desk that proved to be incompatible for one reason or another. And if you can connect 100+ devices to USB, why are 5+ port hubs so rare? I have two USB ports on my laptop. I all my devices insist on NOT porting through a hub, how do I connect 5 devices at the same time? And why is it that I can plug a device into my top USB port one time and then the bottom one the next time and the machine recognizes the device as being "new" all over again.

Sure, Wireless USB should theoretically solve some of the issues above, but if this new technology is based on the same platform, from a PC point of view, then I will just have to wait and see.

By contrast, Bluetooth has pretty much done what I have asked it to do. This may partly be because I don't think BT was made for PC's (laptops included). I think BT is, and will continue to be, a big part of mobile devices. No, the road has not been perfect, but it is getting there. Hopefully Ed will get to sit in a car with built-in BT or a Moto Professional BT Handsfree kit installed. Only then can one appreciate this truly amazing technology.
Silly question, but are all those hubs bus-powered? 8O If so, there's your problem.

[daS]

Well USB and Wi-Fi have also had many years - more in fact than Bluetooth - yet I still have problems with some USB devices that just stop working (Pocket PCs on ActiveSync for example. :roll: )
Not sure it is fair to criticize USB for a product that is built on a 6+ year old program that was designed to spoof a serial port through RAS services and has now been all wrapped up inside a USB driver. I've had AS blow chunks on IR, bluetooth and WAN/WIFI connections. That is AS for you.
Okay, perhaps ActiveStink was not a fair example, but it was just an example. As others have pointed out here, there are problems with all sorts of USB devices. A simple example is that there are times when I plug in a USB device and it shows up as an "unrecognized device". Unplugging it and putting it in a different port might work, or I might have to reboot, or in some cases the only fix is to deinstall the driver and load it again.

I also have USB devices such as a couple of printers (one HP and one Canon) and a scanner that load up a minimum of 10s of megabytes of drivers - not something practical for a Pocket PC!

[Fred44]

True, but the Bluetooth SIG could have set up something like "profile collections" that would have eliminated the confusion people now have about just what their Bluetooth-enabled products are capable of. For example, the Mobile Phone Collection 1.0 could have included Serial Port, Headset, Dial-up Networking, Generic Object Exchange, and Object Push Profiles; version 1.1 could have added Hands-Free and File Transfer Profiles. A Media Collection 1.0 could include File Transfer, Audio/Video Remote Control, Advanced Audio Distribution, and Video Distribution Profiles. A PC Collection 1.0 could include... well, you get the idea.
Wow!!!!! That is a lot of data that no one will understand.

The average consumer will never understand all those configurations. I like the way Bluetooth is marketed today for cell phones. On the side of the box it might say something like

- Supports Wireless Bluetooth Headsets and Wireless Bluetooth Hands free kits.
- Supports Wireless Bluetooth PC Sync with Outlook
- Supports Sending and receiving pictures, contacts and appointments over Wireless Bluetooth

Your average consumer understands general terms.

It’s up the developers of the products to understand all the profiles and make them work so marketing can put general terms on the side of the box. If a developer decides not to include a profile and something does not work its not Bluetooth that is the problem it’s the developer of the product.