The Death of Bluetooth?

Aaron Cherrington writes "Bob Frankston has written an article in which he declares that Bluetooth has failed. The article states that despite the fact it is wireless, it still has all of the limitations of wires. Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?"

Re:its not dead, but close.

Read my lips.

THAT IS NOT WHAT BLUETOOTH IS FOR.

Bluetooth is for personal (that is, on your person) area networking.

It is, by design, a short-range, low-powered protocol. Your mobile phone is a radio with a range of two or three miles...why the hell do you want ANOTHER radio with a range of 30 feet (with the commensurate power consumption which maps directly onto weight) to communicate with a device that should be in your pocket anyway?

Bluetooth, when properly implemented, is great. It's not designed to be the only wireless protocol: It's narrowly designed to do one thing. Replace wires. That, it does well.

The article criticizes BT because it does exactly what it's designed to do. That's silly.

Re:its not dead, but close.

What's wrong with wires? They tangle. They wad up in my pocket and make it harder to rig my earphone. I have to have a different one to perform each task (attach phone to PDA, attach PDA to GPS, attach GPS to computer, make up all your own permutations). They are expensive and fragile.

Do they have to be expensive? Of course they don't. It's a wire, with a plastic doohickey on each end. How many mobile electronics vendors are making universal cable systems? With the conspicuous exception of audio headphones, zero.

I hate wires. It's a problem I percieve, and a solution I'm willing to pay for. Therefore, from my perspective, it is good technology.

Re:my point

Same argument applied to USB.

And, fortunately, Apple is here to make a potentially useful technology ubiquitous again.

Just because you don't think the technology is useful doesn't make it not useful for other people. Fortunately, when a market works properly, your needs, and the needs of others, are addressed by different products.

People who only want to make calls will buy a phone that only makes calls. People who want to do other stuff will buy phones that can do other stuff.

What's the point of deriding a system that other people find useful?

So, again, what's your point?

PDAs

There were approximately 10m PDAs sold worldwide in 2002. Of those, around 4m were sold in the United States. That's somewhere around 1.5% of the population. Even assuming that many people already had PDAs, that's maybe 3% of the population. In short -- only rich businessmen (and technophiles who always buy the latest gadgets). And that's PDAs sold. PDAs used is probably much lower -- while I only two 2 people who use PDAs, I do know around 10 people who have PDAs (most got them as presents and haven't used them since the initial tinkering around). Hell, I myself have a PDA (Dell Axim X5) I got for free, but I haven't really used it, because I just don't see what it's good for.

Where am I basing my personal observations? A computer science department at a university, of all places. One prof. and one departmental secretary has a PDA, the rest don't. And that's much higher than in the non-CS departments, where absolutely nobody has one. It's the same many other places. My dad's company gave away free PDAs to their engineers, but only around maybe 10% of them actually use their PDAs.

Cell phones have a much greater market penetration.

Re:its not dead, but close.

This focus on the Bluetooth headset is shortsighted. BT headsets might be the only currently useful thing to do with BT, but they get BT on devices. When BT gets on devices then you build a base of devices. When you have a base of devices then people start leaving their BT on all the time and they start thinking of interesting ways to use them.

I want:

- my BT headset to interface with my VOIPed home phone
- my BT cell phone to act as a wireless remote control for my TV
- a BT wireless remote to allow separate control over two identical cable boxes (try that with IR)
- a BT keyboard and mouse to interface with my BT smartphone
- to have all my wireless keyboards and mice work with all my computers and all my devices
- to have automatic sync between all of my devices simply by walking up to them

I'll get all of these things with BT because it's low powered, physically small and very cheap to implement in quantity. I'll never get all of these things if I try to get them with 802.11.

TW

Re:its not dead, but close.

I agree that Bluetooth needs to hit a certain density in common consumer goods before it will be really useful, but some of your examples are pretty unlikely to be part of that process.

Point-by-point:

- A Bluetooth headset would make a terrible home-phone add-on; I expect my cordless phone at home to at least function throughout the main floor of my house, if not into the yard, basement, etc. With a Bluetooth headset, I wouldn't be able to move more than a few paces from the wired phone line.

- Remote control applications could be good, but again, depending on environmental radio noise, etc., I'd probably prefer for my TV to stick with IR. Of course, I don't really watch TV, so I can't speak to how convenient it is to not have to keep track of a seperate remote.

- As for the Bluetooth remote for two boxes, that's (AFAIK) a hypothetical future product which could be accomplished just as easily with a properly implemented IR system. Again, the radio noise and lack of range would also make me think twice about replacing infrared.

- The keyboard and mouse are definitely a useful thing, whether they're connecting to a phone, PDA, or even a desktop PC.

- See above

- Again, device synchronization is one of the most logical (and already well-supported) uses for Bluetooth. If you (or a friend or coworker) have access to a recent-model Mac, you should check out iSync with the built-in Bluetooth adapters. My roommate has a Sony/Ericsson Bluetooth-enabled phone, a Palm Tungsten T, and a new 12" PowerBook, all of which link up and sync nicely via iSync. (Now, if only T-Mobile would get a clue on their GPRS pricing, we could all start chucking out our old 56k modems.)

As for the size and cost of Bluetooth, well...it's really not significantly cheaper or smaller than 802.11b. They both work on similar frequencies, with similar degrees of signal processing complexity. The main differences come from 802.11b being at least an order of magnitude more powerful a signal, and requiring more processing power to take advantage of the bandwidth it offers (which is about *two* orders of magnitude greater).

For extremely low-bandwidth connection of I/O devices and short-range transfer of compact binary data, Bluetooth has some real potential. Much of it's vaunted simplicity and cost savings, though, are simply industry hype, generated largely by the same companies that are trying to sell Bluetooth chipsets and design services to electronics manufacturers, and those manufactorers who are trying to push consumers to upgrade to the new top-of-the-line models that support it.

Sounds good to me...

How far do you need to get from your cell phone? It's a portable device fer crisakes. Anyway, if you did your math, you'd find that 10 meters is a little less than 33 feet. So you're getting almost 50% of the spec. Perhaps you're batteries were low?

I don't want a PDA/phone. That means I can't use the PDA and talk on the phone at the same time. And devices that try to comprimise between PDA and phone functions are generally not that good at either.

What I do want is a phone headset that I can use without risk of garroting myself. And I want to browse the web using a portable device I already own and am familiar with: a Palm m515 [palm.com].

If the restriction to Bluetooth applications is, "The phone must be in your pocket, not on your desk," I think I can live with that!

First the Hype, Now the Anti-Hype

First there's the hype, now there's the anti-hype. How about this radical idea, use the right technology for the right purpose and ignore the hype?

Oh, wait, PHB's read this stuff but not slashdot, nevermind.

Re:First the Hype, Now the Anti-Hype

In other news, the PS/2 port has been made obselete by the 100Base-T ethernet connection. After all, why would anyone want a port into which they can only plug a keyboard or mouse with limited bandwidth when they could have one that connects to the Internet?

He is dead!

King Harald 'Bluetooth' (Danish Harald Blåtand) was the King of Denmark and died in 986AD.

Come on /. this is *really* old news!

He's not dead!

He's just pining for the fjords!

Power Consumption

One big benefit of Bluetooth, as one of the user comments on the article's site stated, is it's low-power consumption. So for devices that don't require long distance connections (i.e. keyboard, mouse, cell phone, etc.), Bluetooth is a very convenient technology - WiFi is kinda overkill.

Re:Power Consumption

Bluetooth is a very convenient technology - WiFi is kinda overkill.

Yeah and with 802.11 you find chalk outside your door and someone has taken over control of your electric nosehair groomer.

He's dead, Jim.

Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?

No. It's dead. 802.11x is a far better solutioin for most everything. 802.11x offers better speed, range and availabillity. Sure, HP doesn't have 802.11x embedded in its printers, yet. But, once they give up on Bluetooth, you might very well see printers with 802.11x.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

No. It's dead. 802.11x is a far better solutioin for most everything. 802.11x offers better speed, range and availabillity.

As already mentioned, Bluetooth is not intended to be a networking technology. It is one up from I-R and one down from Wi-Fi. Its one up to I-R because it allows simple devices, close together, to communicate together, simply, and not need to be in line of sight. It is one down from Wi-Fi because there is no need to use something this heavy duty to transfer simple data, doing so would simply be cost restrictive and over kill - this would be akin to using 4 ton truck for moving a box's worth of paper in your office.

People who understand Bluetooth are using it for things like wireless keyboards, mice and synching PDAs and mobile phone to PCs. Printers are a special case, since in most cases you would want to use Wi-Fi, but by using Bluetooth you allow a simple PDA to print out a document - I suppose printers are pushing Bluetooth to the limits of what it was designed for.

Re:He's dead, Jim.

People who understand Bluetooth but are clueless about security?

You're right that Bluetooth lacks any real security, but by being an ultra short range technology the risk of snoopers, and anonymous at that, is reduced greatly. If someone is snooping, then the person snooping is already within an eye-shot or hearing range. Until encryption can be added without adding to the price of the technology, then it is a risk that should be taken into account.

Comparing apples and oranges

The suthor seems to think that Bluetooth will fail because it is not good for connecting to the Internet. Well, duh...

Bluetooth could be good for something else - Personal Area Networks (PAN). This would be used for connecting different portable devices without wires. Range would only be a meter or so, and connecting to the Internet would be right out. There is no sense in all devices trying to connect to the Internet, I only need one device to do that and then all other devices connect to *that device* wirelessly.

I wrote a journal entry [slashdot.org] about this very concept.

The point? Yes, Bluetooth is not as good as 802.11 for connecting to the Internet. There is, however, a huge field open for Bluetooth to fill. Unfortuantely, speed and availability seems to limit it.

I would look for Bluetooth-type technologies to take off in the near future, even if not to "connect to the Internet and compete vs. 802.11" The author seems to limit his thining to beleive that the only niche for Bluetooth would be to connect headsets to phones. Think outside the box a little, and Blueetooth has a huge opening and millions of uses.

Re:And to your left...

Radio waves are much longer than UV, IIRC the spectrum is something like Gamma rays (will penetrate skin, wood, steel... pretty much whatever you throw at it with the exception of some dense elements like lead, and cause all sorts of problems) X-rays (penetrate skin, can cause cancer, not as bad as gamma), UV (penetrates skin, but not far. causes skin cancer, the rest of your body is okay), Visible light (no penetration. no cancer). microwaves (excites water molecules, not much else) and then, we go off to radio waves. radiowaves don't have nearly enough energy to do anything at all to you, particularly slice apart DNA (which is where the cancer problems come from)

These aren't gamma ray devices we're talking about, not even UV devices... they're long wave devices, which are harmless

Re:Comparing apples and oranges

Agree. I would add that in the context of a PAN, Bluetooth is OK to connect to the Internet by using the cell phone as an uplink where there is no 802.11 network to connect to.

I use Bluetooth to connect my PDA to my GSM phone. Now I have access to Internet about everywhere through GPRS. I can do it at the restaurant table while dining with friends or while walking on the street when coming back from work. I like it. This is a fine utilisation of a PAN and as long as Bluetooth is faster than GPRS, none of its limitations matter. Low power low distance is acutally an advantage because it reduces the risk of interference. No big deal for now but what if the technology become pervasive?

The reason Bluetooth doesn't take off is it is poorly marketed. It is waaay overpriced to get any widspread adoption.

Seems to miss the point a bit...

Do you really need IP infrastructure to move packets between your pockets?
This is nuts. There's a niche for bluetooth. The whole p2p bluetooth PAN-in-your-PANTS thing may sound silly now, but my bag would be a lot lighter if I didn't have to carry so many dangly dongles.

Re:Seems to miss the point a bit...

With a packet from your pocket,
we can jack it to a socket,
but with newey teeth of bluey,
do we need a GUI? Phooey!

Perhaps a little premature...

I think its way too early to rule out Bluetooth.. it is still a relatively new technology, and its only now starting to see wider adoption - things like the Microsoft Bluetooth cordless desktop and the like have only been out for a few months!

Also heard about things like Bluetooth capable printers which sounds like a great idea.

I don't really see any suitable alternatives to Bluetooth as yet for short range wire-free communication between devices. The only thing that lets it down is the high cost of Bluetooth components in devices - on larger items like printers and expensive mobile phones this isnt too bad, but for smaller cheaper devices it kinda keeps the prices a little high!

It's quite simple..

The best reason to use bluetooth is to link your cellphone with your PDA or laptop. 802.11 is total overkill for that. Your batteries will die in 20 minutes trying to power a 2-foot link.

I agree that syncing a PDA over the internet or larger distances could be useful, and in that case 802.11 is your man. Bluetooth's goal is to replace short range connections, such as the near-useless IR (ever try aiming a PDA at your phone while as a passenger? I did, and I used velcro for the occasion...)

I was hoping this article wasn't going to be another Bluetooth vs 802.11 non-argument. guess I was wrong.

Re:It's quite simple..

I've seen atleast one suggestion that the power consumption difference is mostly caused by the fact that bluetooth adjusts the transmitter power according to the range.

WiFi transmitters can very likely be made to do that as well.

I've also been using WiFi on my laptop, I haven't noticed any reduction on the battery life; compared to the disk or the processor it seems to take hardly any power; cell phones are a different ball game, but just using less power and hence giving lower range seems doable.

very US centric perspective

Bluetooth is widely used outside the US. And it works well for applications beyond headsets, like synchronizing PDAs and desktops, mobile web access from your PDA, and wireless printing. Bluetooth is far more secure for things like wireless keyboards and will probably take over in that area.

Bluetooth is easier to configure and administer than 802.11a/b/g--people can just do it themselves. And Bluetooth has much better battery life and smaller antennas.

I don't understand the reluctance of US cell phone carriers to offer Bluetooth-capable phones--they are not significantly more expensive than equivalent non-Bluetooth phones. I sometimes think that they don't offer it because they want to control how you access the Internet through their networks. With Bluetooth, you can easily and comfortably use your laptop or PDA, and your own software, to access the Internet through your cell phone. IR and wired, OTOH, iareso cumbersome that most people don't bother, if they are even available.

Look for Bluetooth for your next cell phone and PDA. Consider getting a Bluetooth access point for better battery life from your PDA and laptop. Bluetooth isn't expensive and it's pretty nice.

Note that there are long-range versions of Bluetooth (300ft) and that there are high-speed versions in development.

Re:very US centric perspective

I don't understand the reluctance of US cell phone carriers to offer Bluetooth-capable phones...

I don't understand US cell phone carriers in general, they don't actually seem to understand the capabilities of their own kit. They especially don't seem to understand why cell phone usage hasn't changed t he US culture as it has in Europe (and perhaps especially the UK).

The fact that any eight year old over here, who probably owns at least two cell phones if they're British, could tell them doesn't seem to sink in.

Oh well, until you guys finally catch up we can all make lots of money selling you five year old technology that we've all gotten bored of...

Al.

Re:very US centric perspective

Having lived significant amounts of time in both places (US and Europe, Germany to be precise, and there until the end of 2002), I found cell phone usage in the US population, at least where I live, to be about the same as in Germany.

Hmm, maybe I mean changes in the UK culture then, rather than European culture in general, although the Italians are as mad about mobile phones as we Brits...

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, text messages. Must derided on the US side of the pond, here in the UK they have become a way of life, I know people who rarely actually use their phones for voice but send alot of SMS messages. Like email they are something which can be replied to at the reciever convenience (unlike a "proper" phone call) and are extrememly useful in noisy (or public) situtations (pubs, trains, in the car).

Secondly, having spent large amounts of time abroad in countries where mobile phones haven't made such inroads into the population (like the States, and Germany), the concept of "I'll meet you at 7pm on Tuesday night in such and such a place, and we'll do this" has pretty much disappeared. Things like going down the pub, and other social interaction, have become much more fluid.

Also, meeting people in general has become easier, if you're due to meet someone you can send them a text (or even phone them) to say you'll be five minutes late, or could you meet them somewhere else other than the "planned" place. It sounds trivial, but the cultural change is actually quite profound when you come to think about it.

Secondly, mobile data, WAP was a dismal failure even in the UK with mobile phone addicted culture, but "real" mobile data over GPRS is starting to make significant headway, and MMS (multimedia messaging) is actually starting to take off (despite everyone saying it would be another WAP).

Al.

Re:very US centric perspective

Classic example is text messages. I have more talk minutes than I can use for a flatrate, but SMS costs $.20 per message. Considering that speaking is easier, why the fuck would one ever use that? I've been told that the cost structure is exactly the opposite in the UK.

While most people have an allocated number of 'free' text messages if they're on contract, the vast bulk of the mobile phones in the UK are on a pay as you go plan (no contract, you pay for your outgoing calls only and you still get a heavily subsidised handset), and at that point an SMS costs around 5 to 10p (approx. 8 to 16c at current exchaneg rates). Not so different.

Al.

Why Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi

This story sounds like a wrap-up of an SNS issue [tapsns.com], written by analyst Mark Anderson [tapsns.com] about half a year ago. Yes, Bluetooth has essentially failed to deliver promises on its wild popularity, and Wi-Fi is the NBT (Next Big Thing). However, it's important to remember that Bluetooth and Wi-Fi were designed for different reasons.

If Bob Frankston were writing for an automotive magazine, he'd probably write a subheading 'Why has car business flourished while bikes have essentially failed? Should we even care about bikes?' If you want to connect to the Internet and have wireless access within your house or in the hotel room, use Wi-Fi. But what if all you want is to have devices talk to one another? Remote control to your car computer, telephone handset to the telephone base, PDA to the laptop, etc.? In some cases Bluetooth makes sense more than 802.11b, if you consider cost of deployment and power consumption issues.

Thus Bluetooth is not really a competitor, it's a niche technology that's out there and that's getting more attention from manufacturers. Wi-Fi is immensely bigger and more marketable, but in the nutshell Bluetooth has its own applications and will persist in hardware design for next few years.

"I don't understand it; it can't possibly survive"

The replies on zdnet pretty much sum up everything there is to say already: Bluetooth and 802.11b serve entirely different purposes. It's like saying "I don't understand why we have boats when cars are so good and popular". Bluetooth is for ad-hoc very-short-range wireless networks -- of *course* it's not going to succeed as a replacement for 802.11. But it doesn't need to, as they're not competitors.

I remember reading a while ago that the goal is to make it cost about $1.00 to add bluetooth to ANY device, *including* engineering costs. That might not be here yet, but it's somewhere that 802.11 isn't ever going to go.

The American perspective?

This is just the American slant on mobile technology showing through again, I think most Europeans wouldn't share the view that Bluetooth is dead. Heck, Bluetooth useage is still growing (quickly) over here.

What I don't get is why the guy is even compaing it with 802.11b? Its not even aimed at the same niche. Bluetooth is so that my laptop, my PDA, my cellphone and my desktop or car onboard computer (and sat nav) can all toalk to each other. The entire point is that its tied to a small radius. I don't want my cellphone trying to use my bluetooth enabled hands free car kit if I'm sitting in my office...

Al.

It just never measured up to the hype

When I first heard about bluetooth a good few years ago, it was billed as not just the end of wires but the end of the bulky cellphone handset.

The sales pitch described how you'd be able to leave your phone in your hotel room and take calls via the wireless headset while sat in the bar downstairs. Sounded great. Trouble was, it took much longer to get any product to market and when they did, it was expensive and the functionality was pretty flawed.

Just like WAP, the marketeers told a great story and just like WAP, the reality was pretty disappointing...

*All* the limitations?

it still has all of the limitations of wires.

Except for the *wires* part!

I have a bluetooth headset that I use with my cellphone and it's much more convenient than corded headsets which almost always get tangled and broken.

I have about 4 headsets here with the wires torn out of the earpiece which usually results from the wires getting caught on something while I'm running.

Bluetooth has its place. It's designed for PANs(personal area networks) where WiFi would be way overkill.

Somebody get this guy a Mac

I've got a T68i. It syncs with Entourage on both my Power Mac and my iBook. It acts as a modem for my iBook when I need it. It interacts beautifully with the Address Book app on both Macs, letting me make and take calls and send and receive SMS. It works great with my Plantronics M1000 headset, letting me make and take calls in the car without having to take my eyes off the road, fumble around for the handset, or worry about catching wires on anything. And it does all of these things while still sitting in my pocket.

Bluetooth may not be perfect in its current incarnation, but it's a damn sight better than keying in all my contacts with a numeric keypad, or having to buy a stupid proprietary cable to connect the phone to anything.

~Philly

Bluetooth is great!

Having a Bluetooth enabled mobile phone is great. I can upload/download files, synch with my pc etc. With one of those nice file managers for Symbian, and a nice big memory card, it's bliss.

My new Nokia can even play video files. Mmm.. mobile pron.

The article btw, must be written by an American. Over here, there's lots of people using Bluetooth.

Umm wrong...

Bluetooth is going to be and IS already used in all kinds of things... In fact, the company I worked for is going to replace all their silly serial cables and random cruft of proprietary data cables w/ all or mostly all bluetooth and 802.11. Bluetooth is perfect for short-range data sync'ing like Palm base, car computer diagnositic eqpmnt, and there's even bluetooth headsets that work w/ cell-phones and other things. Bluetooth is definitely not dead, it's just lost it's hype. And M$FT is trying to push it's UPnP as THE way, next wintel will push for their own wireless "STD."

<predictions>
The next technologies we'll see deployed are passive cavity (this is not a pun) resonator circuits (no on-board power) that emit an ID code or do some basic processing on nanopower. Your groceries wont have UPCs, they'll have some little "patch" or "splatch" circuit that'll emit some tiny RF signal when a RF beam is aimed at it. "That'll keep those nerds from constructing a UPC database of our products, and make those CueCats obsolete."
</predictions>

This article misses an important point

That bluetooth and 802.11 are not competitors. They are complementary to one another. Bluetooth is useful for cheap low-speed networking between peripheral devices and a PC. Implementing 802.11 is more expensive than implementing bluetooth. 802.11 only provides a transport layer, but Bluetooth has classes of devices - they may suck, but at least if you support them correctly, you will be able to interoperate. 802.11 requires drivers for each device, and you must be able to speak to them, which means (realistically) they have to speak IP (at least today.) You cannot expect people to add additional network stacks to support, say, a webcam, after all. IPv6 would work, but it's not as widely supported as would reasonably be required. Yet.

Bluetooth is for headsets and keyboards. 802.11 is for connecting hosts. If a device is legitimately a server then it makes sense to put it on 802.11, such as those little webcams with a streaming and/or web server on them.

bluetooth vs 802.11 - a vendor's opinion

A few years ago (probably three, I think) I did some business with a company who made both solutions and complete products for both proprietary wireless systems and the then-new 802.11 and bluetooth markets (guessing which is left as an exercise). I asked their tech-sales guy which of the latter pair he thought would win, or would they both succeed - "only 802.11" he replied, "without a doubt".

I responded (as have many slashdotters above) that surely the two weren't for the same task, and thus were surely destined to exist in parallel, in adjacent market sectors. He told me this wouldn't be true, and his explanation went something like this:

Bluetooth has two main selling points:

1. it's a far simpler protocol, which means a smaller, cheaper digital side (fewer, smaller, slower, cooler, lower-power parts)
2. it's lower powered, which means a cheaper analog side (and less power consumption, and thus longer battery life)

But, he predicted, both of these would be eroded quickly. The former would vanish, he said, when both bluetooth and 802.11 are cost-reduced down to single-chip solutions (which now they mostly are). Sure, the 802.11 chip is bigger than its bluetooth buddy, but the cost-differential is pretty slight.

The latter would still apply, but he predicted (and it's come true, although not yet productised) that the 802.11 folks would produce a low-power, short-range version.

So one of Bluetooth's advantages (for its own market) is largely obviated, the latter partially so. Set this against the economies of scale that 802.11 enjoys, and the greatly enhanced oppertunities for interoperation that the dominant standard enjoys, and the "roaming" use of Bluetooth is beaten, resoundingly.

Bluetooth had two other markets in mind:

• as a desktop "wire replacement", for keyboards, mice, etc., essentially replacing the many proprietary protocols in that space, and for stuff for which we now use USB. Bluetooth can't beat USB on cost or performance, which leaves only the mouse and keyboard market. Sure, it would be nice if your digital camera or mp3 player would just "see" the PC without your having to hook up some cables, but the cable burden isn't that onerous. Now, 802.11 may be cheap, but I think it'll be a few years yet before I have an 802.11 mouse. So there is a market there for bluetooth, but it's small, and bluetooth isn't compelling enough to displace the proprietary guys there.
• the true "personal area network", where all the devices I wear interact with one another, and dock to my pc when I sit at my desk. Well, all those devices (PDAs, cameras, cellphones, mp3) have (or are now) converging on a single device (which we call a phone, 'though it is many things besides). This leaves bluetooth with another thin market segment - connecting cellphones to PCs. Again, cheap fast cables, IRDA, and proprietary RF solutions all own this space, and again bluetooth isn't compelling enough to displace them.

Every product has to answer the same challenge - not "are you useful" but "are you useful ENOUGH".

Way off article

This article is mislead in so many ways. People here have covered the fact that BT and WIFI are ment to co-exist, so I'll skip that.

Anyone who have seen an Apple intergrate with an Ericsson t68i will be convinced that BT is a killer app. It works seamlessly and is so beautifully integrated that I could cry with joy when I get to send an SMS on-screen "just like that".

BT suffers from ONE thing only. Bastard companies that love proprietary devices. Like Nokia. Nokias BT headset twists the BT regulations by transmitting the audio through data profiles, not audio profiles like it is supposed to. So you can't get cheat headsets for Nokia until someone makes a data-only headset. This is killing BT, not lack of usage. BT along with Airport is a marriage made in heaven.

Visit us in Europe, and see that BT is in daily usage mr. Frankston.

BONUS: Try the Bluetooth pic-swap-game! The rules are simple. Be sure to have a cool picture of yourself on your fancy-schmancy phone. Nudeness optional, but recommended. Keep Bluetooth enabled on the phone (Notice how this does not drain your batteries like you were jump-starting an F-16) When bored, search for other phones in public places. When you finde a phone, transmit the picture and it will pop up like a message on the other phone. If the other person is cool and tech-savvy like you, (s)he will transmit a pic back. Yay!

PAN, LAN, and WAN

Many pundits in this long line of posts have repeatedly pointed out that bluetooth is intended to be a PAN technology (Personal Area Networking) And that the author is greviously wrong for thinking that bluetooth should be more robust at connecting to the internet.

To these many people, i must say your very very wrong. While bluetooth's focus should certainly be on nothing more than connecting to devices within it's limited range, it should also be VERY high on it's priorities to be highly compatable with the web in any and every respect possible. This functionality will allow bluetooth to gateway beyond it's limited scope. And lets face it folks the idea is to have your cell phone accesible from anywhere on the net given that you have proper authentication.

I should be able to leave my cell on my desk at home, go to work, or a friends, and if i need to connect to it remotly to dig up whatever i want.

The concept behind the address spac of IPv6 (really IPng) is to have address's for every device imaginable no matter how small it's role. And bluetooth would be wise to provide that functionality at least conceptualy. To treat the computer(s) it has access to as gateway's, and to offer it's (authorized) services beyond them or through them. The model for the internet addressing is two-tierd (network/host) and this has been found to be inefficient for the exact reasons why PAN networking needs to be fully functional and logisticly compatible with the entire internet.

Their are already plans and implementations floating around about how to deal with free form routing with wireless objects. Networks that create themselves automaticly... discovering gateways through each other without user interventions... so that if you walk into a room with a bunch of friends, your bluetooth cellphone has already discovered how to access the net through your buddies music player which routes through another cellphone upstairs, which bridges through a 802.11x base station (for whatever reason) which has also dynamicly located a WAN wireless station.

Oh i know the above is plagued with all kinds of technical difficulties at the moment, and some parts are non-sensible, but thats not the idea. The idea is everything is connected to everything else automaticly and wirelessly, while remaining secure... and while utilizing whatever transport medium is appropriate for them. Bluetooth for small close hand devices, 802.11x for LAN's etc.... wired systems for back bone data... and so on...

Where R the MP3 + Bluetooth devices?

I am waiting for that.
I have owned Walkmans of every type over the years, high quality, low quality, radios, tape players, CD players. The only exception is an MP3 device.
I have learned my lesson.

For whatever reason on ALL of these devices within a couple months of buying them I break the headphone jack on the device. It will get loose and start to loose the stereo sound and then eventually it won't be useable at all.
I have never had an understanding of what I was doing to break all of them.

But I do know that iPods and the like are way too expensive for me to just break them a month down the road.
A bluetooth iPod and a bluetooth enabled headset seems to me like a killer combination that would resolve that problem.

I am waiting....

Service discovery

Bluetooth by itself is not a big deal. But combined with technology like Apple's Rendezvous, it's really cool. Apple seems to be imagining a future where you can walk around with your laptop, and services like printers become available immediately when they come within range, then disappear when you go out of range. To Apple, Bluetooth seems to be all about service discovery.

I think we're just waiting for the killer app. Syncing your cell phone may be fun, and cordless keyboards and mice may be cool, but neither are as big a deal as wireless Internet access on your front porch.

I haven't given up hope, though. Since Bluetooth is cheap and low-power, it's not going anywhere soon.

Schmootooth

Everyone is making excellent points about how great the technology is at what it is designed to do. Bluetooth suffers from a very simple problem. Implementation. I've heard about Bluetooth for some 4 years now. Like VoIP maybe it just needs time. The difference is, bluetooth is for personal tech-toys, unlike VoIP. So it's likely to die before widespread acceptance can give it life. I don't own a single bluetooth enabled device for two reasons: a) it inflates the cost of whatever it's built into and b) it inflates the cost of whatever it's built into. Thus keeping me from buying two devices. :) Look, it may be great, the bomb, the mad-note, all of the above. But if you have to go find it or worse, wait for the great new PDA you really like to come with bluetooth, it's useless technology. Technology unused. Make it ubiquitous, like WiFi and it will live. Don't, and it's a hairless cat. Neat to look at...neat to tell your cat-loving friends you have one...but without a pair you've only got it till it dies...and it will. >

I love Bluetooth

I love Bluetooth, but I think the reason that so many people see it as pointless is becasue of the things they are able to do with it.

I have a PowerMac G4, and with the Bluetooth dongle from DLink I sync my contacts between my PC and phone, sync my schedule too (very handy) and also, when I'm around the Mac (as I am a LOT of the time) text messages will appear on the screen instead of the phone, and I can reply via my keyboard (heaven!).

I watch a lot of DiVX on my nice big screen and when I found that I can use as a remote control I was hooked! My Mac now plays music when I come back from a lecture and shuts up when I leave the room. [salling.com]

I love Bluetooth, I use it every day, and NO it is not the same as having cables. Windows users I feel sorry for, as MS seems to be ignoring all this great functionality.

Ok, it's NOT going to revolutionise your life, so STOP EXPECTING IT TO! But it is very handy and useful, and *cheap* too. Which is a big factor.

-Nex

Re:I love Bluetooth

Fuck, should learn to

a. Preview
b. Close tags

Personal area network?

Seriously, what do you need to network on your person? If the only connection is between a PC and a cell phone then I will do just fine with a cradle. I just dont understnad what the intention was, and it appears that I am not alone.

I believe it.

I had an Aunt with blue tooth for years, and now she's dead!

more goddam batteries

The real problem with Bluetooth for keyboards and mice is that you have to have batteries for these devices, when the conventional ones work off the 5v line from the PC. Pain in the ass! Just what I need while I'm working, to have to find a battery for my keyboard.

IMMINENT DEATH OF BLUE TOOTH PREDICTED!

It is to be buried next to the internet, the apple computer and the light bulb.

The problem is price!

Bluetooth was supposed to rock because it was going to be cheap. But that hasn't happened, WiFi is cheaper. Bluetooth was supposed to add $5 to the cost of the device. If that held true, they would have sold a lot of Bluetooth DigiCams, Printers, mice, keyboards, etc. Sure, it's not ideal for any of these things, but I'd pay $10 to have Bluetooth on my Digicam.

But it's expensive, so it hasn't worked out. Cost is the only real barrier to adoption-- many will gladly pay $10/ device to eliminate wires, but $50 is not a good value proposition. Lower the price, and we'll use it.

All the limitations of wires????

I use Bluetooth with my laptopn and Nokia 6130i. I can keep the phone in coat-pocket and use Bluetooth to make data-calls using the laptop. I can walk around with the laptop while the phone stays put (range is about 10-20 meters) and the connection between the phone and the laptop never misses a beat. You would need pretty long wires for that!

I don't have to mess around with wires or IR-ports. I can just take the laptop and connect wirelessly.

Then there are the Bluetooth headsets. I don't use those, but they are pretty cool. No need to carry the phone around, all you need is the headset.

The reports of it's death are greatly exaggerated.

I don't know about most of you, but finding a bluetooth enabled device that actually does anything is difficult if not impossible. Systems from vendors do not have a lot of models with bluetooth, or it is an option.

Apple is the only vendor I know that ships it in most of their models. IBM's Thinkpads have a few models with it.

And the next device I'd want, the phones are kinda rare. Only one or two and then the plans are either not offered/don't support anything that I would need (national coverage with no roaming fees with a large amount of minutes under $50 a month, Sprint is the only one that offers and so far they have NO bluetooth phones). On top of that, I want PDA functions in a phone with bluetooth. That doesn't exist either.

The next piece I'd want is a headset.

I have my mouse. Of course it only works with Windows/Intel somehow (surprise, it's a Microsoft device)

The problem with Bluetooth is people expect it to have wi-fi range. Bluetooth was something that you could use in an office cube, or a meeting room, and that is it. It's not supposed to solve world hunger or network a 5000 sq ft. building.

Re:A wired standard would be more useful to me.

USB does everything you ask, including the power, very well. Just about the only thing that it lacks, and that your applications above really call for, is a lightweight connector. If they standardised a little clip-in edge connector (like the ones that PCMCIA modems use to connect to the phoneline-adaptor dongle thing) for stuff like your earphones, then you'd be set.

For all I know, the USB folks do have such a standard mini-connector.