Rob Enderle Announces Death of Bluetooth

prostoalex writes "Rob Enderle is typing away (perhaps even on his very own Ferrari laptop) at Intel Developer Forum, noting that Intel gave up on IEEE Ultrawideband and decided to switch to Wireless USB derivative. This, in Mr. Enderle's opinion, signifies the end of life for Bluetooth standard, although Enderle calls Bluetooth 'dead' in the title of the article and 'all but dead' in the actual text."

Rant.

Netcraft confirms... Bluetooth is dy--- err skip it.

Anyway, slashdot, what are you thinking? You first show how retarded this fellow is by linking the story about the ferrari laptop. You then proceed to start to post other stories by this fellow. Don't you think that the credibility of this fellow has long since gone down the toilet after an article about his laptop that goes vroom?

Everybody has an opinion. Everybody has a voice. What's next? A BSD-is-dead troll getting linked on the front page? Seriously guys ;)

I hope everybody realizes that linking to this fellow's posts will only validate him, even if it's for the purpose of laughing at his assertions, calling him wrong, whatever. Sorry, but I don't trust reviewers that get a kick out of a car sound starting up a laptop, just like I don't trust the technical opinion of someone who discovers that they don't have to hear "You've got mail" when they get a new message.

I don't think he deserves the time of day after the last story. And if anybody disagrees with me here, by all means reply to this and say why I'm wrong.

</rant>

Re:Rant.

Its pretty clear most of us don't care much about what Rob Enderle has to say. Apple has integrated bluetooth and I love it. Its in many devices and its cheaply priced.

Plus I would never be caught dead with a Ferrari laptop.

Re:Rant.

That is true, but therein lies the danger of blindly opposing (just as dangerous of blindly following!).

He's an idiot, for sure, but in this case he's right. Accidentally, I'm sure, but IBM and NEC both just dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was and how to plug the holes in it safely.

It's almost impossible to get a Bluetooth core from any IP dealer, much less an ASIC vendor. And that's mostly the fault of Bluetooth itself for not being sure what it is -- spec-compliant implementations just weren't playing together well.

IMHO, the spec never settled and was originated by under-qualified individuals. Some of the braver, more vocal persons involved agree. Googling would yield some interesting commentary pages from some of those involved/de-involved in Bluetooth, if you're really interested.

And, if you don't think Intel can affect such a thing, try standing on the back of InfiniBand and trying to see through the dust to catch a glimpse of PCI-express as it buzzes by when Intel switched from the former to the latter.

Wireless USB comes from the same group that spec'ed out USB 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, and that managed to out-sell the arguably-superior firewire spec. I think wireless USB will last longer than Bluetooth.

Re:Rant.

The death of Bluetooth view is being advocated from a perspective that says Intel is in the driver's seat - a very PC centric view.

Take a look from another perspective - device centred - and the picture looks much much different. There are millions of bluetooth enabled cell phones (mine included) in consumers hands around the world; Palm is using the standard in their exorbitantly expensive models.

So I'd have to suggest that consumers are going to demand compatiblity there - the Bluetooth market is far from dead, even if there are outstanding issues (pairing - although I've never had a problem with this.)

Re:Rant.

The death of Bluetooth view is being advocated from a perspective that says Intel is in the driver's seat - a very PC centric view. Take a look from another perspective - device centred - and the picture looks much much different.

Cheap devices use ASICs and ASSPs to implement Bluetooth. IBM, NEC, Toshiba, LSI, and somewhere down the line Mitsubish are the major ASIC and ASSP players. Now, with that in mind re-read my post, especially this part:

IBM and NEC both just dropped support for Bluetooth in their ASIC core selection (which is key to cellphone, other cheap device, and mobo mfg'ers), LSI and Mitsubishi stopped development altogether after wasting some cash trying to figure out what the spec actually was and how to plug the holes in it safely.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you bought a phone with an ASIC inside that includes a core that is no longer supported. That means there will be nore updated models of your device, no big deal, but it also means no new Bluetooth support in that line either. Which is what we're discussing. As much as I hate to agree with that ferarri-licking laptop monkey, he's right.

Re:Rant.

The main drivers of Bluetooth in cellphones are Nokia and Sony Ericsson. These guys do not provide the functionality based on what comes in off the shelf chips. They spec that they want Bluetooth in a phone series, and the chip will have Bluetooth.

Re:Rant.

Actually, SE get their Bluetooth from Cambridge Silicon Radio [csr.com]. As do Nokia, for some of their newer devices.

And pretty much everyone making something with Bluetooth in it is buying fron CSR (unless they are making it themselves).

Re:Rant.

"There are millions of bluetooth enabled cell phones (mine included) in consumers hands around the world"

And they've served their purpose admirably - getting people to upgrade a perfectly good cellphone. What next, attaching cameras to them?

Re:Rant.

Wireless USB comes from the same group that spec'ed out USB 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, and that managed to out-sell the arguably-superior firewire spec.

I know you're not implying that Firewire is therefore useless and doomed to extinction, but just to clarify:

USB 2.0 and Firewire both have their pros and cons and different uses. USB 2.0 is more prominent because it's cheaper and more of a "consumer" protocol because it puts more work on the system's processor (instead of the controller) and doesn't sustain its data rate as well as Firewire. So yeah, more devices have USB 2.0 because most people don't care if their USB 2.0 scanner is 15% slower on a 600dpi scan.

However, video editors and more "pro" types will pay a premium for Firewire because of its higher sustained data rate. It also has devices that *gasp* support daisy-chaining which is really useful. Not to mention Firewire 800 which is hella faster [creativecow.net] than USB 2.0.

So, yeah, USB 2.0 definitely has out-sold Firewire, but that doesn't mean Firewire is going away. Just like IDE drives have outsold SCSI, but you don't see that going anywhere, do you?

Anyway, sorta OT, but the examples apply to the BT/WUSB debate. Since I don't know the specs of WUSB I can't compare them, but I'm sure one will have a power/performance/distance trade off somewhere which will make each protocol have their uses.

Now if only someone will make a Bluetooth CDMA phone so I can switch to Sprint because my overpriced cell provider was just bought [slashdot.org] by the evil Cingular overlords.

Re:Rant.

The other benefit of Firewire is that it doesn't require a root node. You can, in theory, plug a Firewire camera into a Firewire VCR with no computer involved. USB is centered around a computer containing a root node.

Re:Rant.

1. Intel chipsets had USB builtin since the days of USB 1.0, thus for about half of the sold motherboards (those with Intel chipset), USB was just there without additional cost. Firewire required extra hardware until non-Intel chipset designers started to put it into their products.

2. Firewire uses an own controller design to handle the protocol, making the chip design to support Firewire more complex. USB does a lot of work in the software USB driver, thus making for a more simple chip design or an easier integration of USB into the I/O part of the chipset (mostly in the southbridge).

This basicly covers also the pros and contras for USB and Firewire.

USB is cheaply to implement in hardware, and you can add functionality later in the driver. So USB-support for non-commodity platforms is more complex, because you have to write more complex drivers. USB transfer rate is coupled with system load, a loaded system can't keep the full transfer rate, and USB transfers in reverse generate considerable system load at higher rates.

Firewire is more complex to do in hardware, but once it is implemented, the drivers are quite straight forward and generic and thus easily implementable on different platforms. Protocol extensions will break backward compatibility though or require at least a software compatibility layer to run also on older hardware. But firewire transfers are not coupled with the system throughput and can run with high rates on highly loaded systems or slow CPUs.

Re:Rant.

What matters for bluetooth is not whether a pundit thinks it's going to survive, but whether manufacturers like Apple, Nokia, Sony/Ericsson, Toyota (!!), Panasonic, IBM, Microsoft, Toshiba, Motorola, and the rest of these companies [bluetooth.com] support it.

-jcr

Re:Rant.

yeah, i whole-heartedly agree with everything you've said. my biggest complaint about bluetooth is that its just not used to it's full potential. it seems to me to be the PERFECT replacement for remote-controls for TV, VCR, DVD, etc... line-of-site just straight up sucks, bluetooth is cheap, and its range is less than ideal for a lot of computer applications (wireless printer, etc...)

Re:Rant.

This is my favorite bit:

But until someone figures out how to do broadcast power, a truly wireless solution may never be possible.

This is like saying that cold fussion would be good for the electric toothbrush industry. Trivialy true, but ignoring what a fundamental advance he is talking about.

Re:Rant.

Actually, there is wireless power. But it doesn't work very well. Using just a few electronic parts from the local Radio Shack (depending on how well stocked your local Radio Shack is) you can build an AM radio that is completely powered by the signal of the radio station. No power cord. No batteries. Not really enough power from the air to run a speaker, but enough for headphones. And it's free. As long as you don't break it, and the AM station is on the air you can listen for free forever. Now, if this could only work on FM then we'd have something special.

Re:Rant.

Slightly off topic, but...
As I recall this was Nicola Tesla's [wikipedia.org] last great invention, or attempt thereof. The Wardenclyffe Tower [wikipedia.org]. According to various books [amazon.com] Tesla was purported to have it working in his lab and the tower was an attempt to scale it up a few notches. The project fell through, however, when J.P. Morgan [wikipedia.org] pulled his funding and told everyone else to do so as well.
Anyway, enough of the history lesson, back to the real "story".

Actually

What's next? A BSD-is-dead troll getting linked on the front page?

More likely, the next story will be about some guy named Rob Enderle announcing the death of Bluetooth.

Not the best article Slashdot ever ran.

This is a bad article for a number of reasons.

First the technical. Right now, Bluetooth works really well (even on Linux) and it's cheap, cheap, cheap. It's still in the running. It's really impressive making a GPRS call to connect to the Internet from my laptop with class 1 bluetooth dongle to my Ericsson t68i anywhere in the room, maybe still in the car. I don't have to move the laptop over to the window to get a good signal any longer.

Second, editorial. We had a series of articles that essentially said "Enderle's stupid and malicious". All this article says is "He's still stupid". Nobody's interested in that.

Bruce

Re:Not the best article Slashdot ever ran.

After a quick skim of his website ("Enderle Group"...that's a bit pretentious for a group of one), I don't know whether I'd say he's stupid. I think he's probably about as informed as most IT journalists out there, which is not a lot.

More concerning is the fact that he may have the lowest degree of integrity I've ever seen in a professional journalist. His website pretty plainly describes how companies can buy positive endorsements from him. He's really more of an ad source than anything else. (Admittedly, this is par for the course for the business publication field, but seems kind of depressing in the technology field.)

He also seems to go in for real shock-and-alarm articles "Foo is DEAD and has STUPID MANAGEMENT". He likes to make very strong statements in his articles. Finally, while he cites a few articles that turned out to be correct, he doesn't seem to have a very good history of being correct.

Frankly, if I have to have someone like him, I'd prefer John C. Dvorak. Dvorak sometimes promotes bad ideas, and tends to go for overly-strong statements, but at least tends to be interesting, and has articles that contain less brown-nosing or FUDding than Enderle. Plus, his writing is more pleasant to read.

Re:Rant.

Sorry, but I don't trust reviewers that get a kick out of a car sound starting up a laptop, just like I don't trust the technical opinion of someone who discovers that they don't have to hear "You've got mail" when they get a new message.

I don't have any problem with thinking a VROOM startup sound is cool, what makes him look like an idiot is that he's touting that particular 'feature' like it's unique to the Ferrarri laptops and no other NON-Ferrarri computers can do it. It's as though he's never heard of Control Panel/Sound before.

No, I fully well realize (as I hope you do) that this 'article' was likely a paid ad from Acer, which is the real reason why he needs to be posted in humor or not at all.

If only I had some mod points.

Wow, you're about as insightful as Enderle, I don't know what the fuck the mods who marked you as interesting were smoking, but I wish I could get some. Linking your post to the whole Apple Zealot vs. PC Muckraker thing is low, and that alone should have triggered troll alarms. Some people will never learn I guess.

The fact that Intel don't support bluetooth is about as relevant to Bluetooth's survival as if General Motors support McDonald's. It's not going to stop me putting a McDonald's soft drink in the drink holder in my gas guzzling SUV, nor is Intel's bitching about Bluetooth going to stop anyone plugging in a USB or PCMCIA bluetooth adaptor to any Intel computer.

Your understanding that Bluetooth sucked is obviously because you have no clue and have just been reading the crap that so-called pundits like this dickhead Enderle who sells his opinion to anyone who plies him with shiny things. I haven't had any problem syncing my phone to my computers using bluetooth, haven't had any problem with the range (hint: It's a PERSONAL AREA network) since it's only supposed to work while I'm right next to the computer, and haven't had any trouble syncing my phone to other phones.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Bluetooth was dead on arrival, and because you're trolling as AC you likely won't be able to respond with a source. I know I'm feeding trolls here, but this response is so that hopefully you'll get modded into the depths of obscurity where your misinformed post belongs.

You finish off your post by saying that you don't think Bluetooth will die an immediate death. No shit sherlock, there are millions of bluetooth phones, bluetooth adaptors, and bluetooth compatible laptops out there, of course it's not going to disappear, but it will be superceded someday.

As for your comments about firewire, who gives a fuck if YOU personally don't use firewire? Practically every digital video camera uses firewire, so that's also on millions of devices and won't be going anywhere soon either.

Excellent News!

This is a good thing, because Rob Enderle is always wrong (source: Ferrari laptop, his Apple-related commentary & speculation). Naturally, then, we can expect a sudden increase in Bluetooth sales (and the universal acceptance of Bluetooth as a standard).

As it happens, I just purchased a Bluetooth-enabled phone and USB adapter.

Re:Excellent News!

Well, the mere fact that Apple has begun to push Bluetooth indicates that it's probably going to survive. After all, who had even heard of USB before the iMac had it? Very few x86 computers had it, Apple made it standard on the iMac, and now every single x86 motherboard I see at Fry's has USB. Sure it can be argued that this wasn't entirely Apple, but even so, they accepted it and it is now standard. They accepted Bluetooth, so it's probably not going anywhere, whether it's Apple keeping it alive and driving acceptance or whether Apple just sees a good thing.

Think again

Check your history man. USB didn't take off until Apple came out with the iMac (think 1997, not Windows 98). Also, Wi-Fi was priced in the $700+ per base station range till Apple introduced it for $300. Hardly anyone even knew it existed till Phil Schiller jumped off a ledge during a keynote speech holding an iBook that maintained its network connection. So believe it or not (and I guess you won't) but Apple is the reason both of those technologies didn't just drop off the face of the earth and suddenly became widely accepted.

Re:Excellent News!

You've obviously not used anything with Bluetooth support. You're also an idiot.

Yup, just like Firewire is so well accepted

Yeah, so well-accepted, in fact, that it's standard on many good Wintel motherboards now, most all DV equipment, and most better-than-the-cheapest beige-box PCs from Dell, Sony, HP, etc. Or were you going to connect your brand-new digital camcorder to your USB2 port? Good luck with that...

and SCSI has become a standard feature of all PCs.

Until FireWire made it obsolete on the consumer level, SCSI was the standard for connecting peripherals that needed more bandwidth or speed than parallel could give, which was basically every storage device there was (except floppies).

USB didn't go anywhere until Windows 98 came out since Windows 95 had crappy USB support...USB was quickly accepted once it became useable

No, USB didn't go anywhere because there was no market for USB devices, because Joe-User on his Windoze box was still stuck in "Parallel solves all my problems" mode. It took Apple's abandonment of serial, and ADB -- and the resulting ENORMOUS market for USB peripherals due to the horrid round mouse and lack of a floppy drive -- to give USB the kick in the pants it needed. USB's usability had nothing to do with it, either. You can thank Apple for making USB more than another failed Intel experiment.

Bluetooth is relatively slow at 760 kb/sec, so it's not very practical for anything high bandwidth.

You're exactly right.

BECAUSE BLUETOOTH WASN'T DESIGNED TO BE HIGH-BANDWIDTH! It was designed to be convenient, short-range, wireless networking to replace slower, less reliable technologies like IrDA and the proprietary RF used in wireless mice/keyboards. It was designed to connect wireless fones with PDAs with computers with headsets. And it mostly succeeds at all of that. I don't expect my car to fly, so I don't know why you seem to expect Bluetooth to be an 802.11b replacement...

Why would I recommend to Joe-User that they make sure their next computer has Bluetooth support?

You don't recommend any purchases for people who have laptops, PDAs, or cell fones, do you?

Sheesh.

p

Re:Well...

I imagine you looked like quite the dork having to hold your Palm and phone at just the right angle to keep the infrared link going. With Bluetooth, I can do that with my phone in my pocket, or even in the next room.

Re:Well...

I am fairly certain that the reason one looks like a dork when browsing the Internet on one's Palm is not the awkward angles required for infrared cellphone links.

Re:Well...

Infrared is hard to use at high speeds when you're moving. That line-of-sight issue can do it in every time.

Bluetooth is meant mostly for human interface devices... the abilty to drive a printer or do other networking tasks is just a nice bonus.

e=mc squirreled ?

Infrared is hard to use at high speeds when you're moving.

Very true. In fact, it gets exponentially harder the closer you get to c.

Ok, now imagine...

Now imagine doing that while you are walking, with your phone on your belt, or in your backpack.

I use IR synching with my Palm and Powerbook, and the connectivity between my phone and same powerbook is about 1000x more reliable and more useful, since I don't even have to touch the phone to have the whole thing work.

DAMN!

Someone needs to tell that to my Apple PowerBook G4, Sony T68i, Axim X3 and Jabra BT200 headset. I really don't have the time, I am too busy using Bluetooth keeping them synced. iSync owns.

Then how am I typing this?

If Bluetooth is dead, then how come my Bluetooth keyboard is working perfeSIGNAL LOST

Why are we even giving this guy any attention ?

With articles [slashdot.org] like [slashdot.org] this [slashdot.org], isn't is obvious Enderle just wants to garner attention. And slashdot seems to be giving him just that. I wonder whether he wants to float an IPO soon, and pull of another SCO.

Only Intel

gave up

That doesnt mean Apple, cell-phone manufacturers and other peripheral manufactuters will.

Re:Only Intel

Yes it does. Of course it does. Intel is the 800 lb. gorialla, and everyone watches intently to see where it will sit.

If you don't know that you haven't been paying attention, and you might not realizwe that intel is the #1 semiconductor manufacturer in the world, by a gargantuan margin, and has been for a long, long time.

Case in point: InfiniBand

Intel can kill any but the most amazingly advanced technology, which Bluetooth definitely is not. Case closed.

Re:Only Intel

To quote [theregister.co.uk] Intel CTO Pat Gelsinger on that matter:

"Over time, UWB could replace Bluetooth," he said, "but it's a way, way off. Bluetooth has been shipping for five years and it will ship for five or ten more - it's a very successful technology."

Re:Only Intel

Indeed. It's silly to think of Bluetooth as dead when it's finally gotten BSD support.

KFG

Re:Only Intel

yeah they will. It might take a couple years for it to catch on, but why on earth would anyone use a 760kbps connection which has (on windows anyway) the worst drivers ever written when wireless USB runs at 480Mbps? Power may be an issue. Didn't have a chance to talk to many people about that at IDF (too busy doing booth duty myself)

I've got a bluetooth PDA and bluetooth on my PC. And we have a bluetooth barcode scanner at work. None of the devices can ever link to each other reliably.

Now, as a disclaimer I work in the USB industry. I've still yet to see a WUSB spec (soon I hope, lots of questions about how things work, particularly about whether the existing single host/multi device model will remain the same). Guess time will tell. Bluetooth is great when it works (and I *do* think it's mostly a driver issue), but we can do better...

Re:Only Intel

If you already have your devices and they work well together, why the hell do you care about companies dropping support?

Because the next time I buy a laptop, I don't want to also have to buy a new cell phone, GPS receiver, PDA, wireless mouse, etc.

Retard. You are just another reactionary /. troller trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

Have a nice day.

Bluetooth was Dying

I always thought it was...then I didn't...then I did...and now I'm sure it's not.

Looking at the Dude with the Ferarri laptop's website sold me.

"The Enderle Group provides an unparalleled look underneath breaking technology events to identify the core reasons that buyers and builders of this technology should care. The stated goal for the firm is "to bring diverse and challenging views into technology advisory services and consulting"."

If anyone can totally misjudge the future of a product or technology, it's a consultant.

They do this every week...

Linux is dead. Windows is dead. BSD is dead. Slashdot is dead.
We've heard in all before. If it's true or not, only time will tell.

Re:They do this every week...

Linux is dead. Windows is dead. BSD is dead. Slashdot is dead.

Eh? Every BSD is dead or Linux is dead post gets modded -1 Troll. This guy combines them all together and gets +5 Insightful?? The moderators work in mysterious ways...

Been dead for some time now.

911-987AD [wikipedia.org]

I doubt it...

Not to sound like an all knowing leet mac user, but I think bluetooth will be dead when Apple stops including it as an option on the Macs.

Apple by it's nature seems to be a good indicator of what's in. Apparently USB was around for a while, but didn't really pick up until Apple added it to it's machines. Look at Wi-Fi/Airport, Apple was one of the first companies to include it and make it standard.

Ditto with Bluetooth. Them Mac users will jump on anything Apple sugar coats and make it viable :-)

Feel free to correct me if I've made erroneous assertions. Thanks :-)

Re:I doubt it...

Apple by it's nature seems to be a good indicator of what's in.

ADB was never "in" :)

I wouldn't call bluetooth dead, but what Intel has developed is pretty amazing. When I first heard about bluetooth I had visions of getting rid of the cord nightmare behind my TV cabinet. Put a DVD player near my TV, and plug it into the wall, and have it wirelessly send a signal to my TV and my Reciever. Unfortunately, bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for this.

Bluetooth will be used for cellphones and keyboards, and what intel is developing will be used for cdburners, dvd players, etc.

Re:I doubt it...

Actually, back in 2001, Intel had this [theregister.co.uk] to say about the future of floppy drives. While we haven't seen the death of floppy drives, sales of floppy disks are declining at a steady pace. The floppy drive has become an add-on, where it used to be a defacto, you-need-this-no-matter-what-you-say component when selecting your next computer--Apple's dropped them entirely, Intel's telling people not to use them, and Dell doesn't include them on all of their machines anymore (the Dimension 8300, for example, doesn't come with a floppy drive unless you add it).

Oh, and for reference, the word for which you're looking is "you're", not "your", but you're a troll, so I can forgive the obvious lack of understanding.

Re:I doubt it...

Them Mac users will jump on anything Apple sugar coats and make it viable :-)

"Unix? Don't make me laugh. That's for geeks and dorks. It's clunky, arcane, command line driven, everything a Mac isn't. You'd never get me to switch fromm. . . Oooooooooooo, shiney!"

KFG

One step forward two steps back

Is it me or are companies jumping way too far ahead and losing sight of some really cool things. So we hear every other week about how XCompany just broke the terrahertz chip barrier for what? They're still only offering gigahertz chips. YCompany is making a terrabyte disk the size of a peanut... So why aren't they selling it.

Companies really make me laugh sometimes. LaCie recently announced that terrabyte 'affordable' drive for I think it was under a grand. Yet you could buy ten 100gig drives for about that price... What's the big deal?

It seems as the time goes on companies rush to bring out the latest hype to let it all fall down. As they invent new gizmos, and standards, they seem to kill it the minute it is actually being used to bring out (*drum roll please*) the newest gizmo and standard. So what's left after they run through every possible combination of ideas, and technologies? Makes me think of history and older civilizations that kind of imploded on advancements.

Somebody pull the plug on this idiot

This is the same guy who was shown Linux code and told it was stolen from SCO--he then parroted the same crap to help boost SCO's stock prices. This guy's on the opposite end of "tech expert"--please don't feed or publicize this troll.

Re:Somebody pull the plug on this idiot

If only we could give ZDnet writers -1's for the columns they hand in....

You can pay this guy to say anything

You can pay this guy to say anything. See his website where he even gives an example:

http://www.enderlegroup.com/products/prod_refere nc eAcct.htm

I am shocked to how much coverage this utterly clueless individual gets on Slashdot.

Uh, about that...

...yeah. Bluetooth is dead.

So don't tell Apple [apple.com]. Or ANY of the folk [toshiba.com] who [hp.com] make [sony.com] PDAs [palmone.com] and accessories [belkin.com] with Bluetooth capabilities.

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who hadn't heard of "Wireless USB" before this article?

Re:Uh, about that...

Yeah- don't tell Intel [theregister.co.uk] either.

Wait? You mean Intel is adding bluetooth support to next gen Centrino, and this whole /. story is nothing but a troll designed to whip you geeks into an anti-Intel frenzy? Imagine that...

Here are some reasons why it is not dead yet:

Tapwave Zodiac 2
HP IPAQ H4350
SONY CLIE PEG-UX50
etc..

Smaller devices have finally started to rely on bluetooth as a means to communicate with a variety of nearby electronics. BMW's have built in bluetooth that allows one to use a bluetooth enabled phone through their steering wheel, there are probably 10 different bluetooth enabled GPS receivers designed for use with PocketPC and PalmOS. We've been hearing about the death of bluetooth since the year it came out, and for some time it looked likely, but not anymore. There are far too many useful devices that have come out in the last year which have made great use of bluetooth. Is it going to die someday? Obviously. But not as long as products keep shrinking and the need for close-proximity communication continues to rise at the same rate that market forces demand lower pricing.

Stoopid pundits

Bluetooth is here right now and it works. Is there anything else that is here right now that works that could replace bluetooth? (Hint: the answer is NO).

Thus bluetooth will continue to be used for the things that it is being used for. Thus it will proliferate more and more every year there is nothing else.

Thus bluetooth is NOT dead. In fact I would say that it is merely in its teenage years. And as long as it can stay off the heavy drugs it should be alive for many years to come.

I heard this before..

These so called Bluetooth Standard Devices have long been known to be dying. This is yesterday's news.

Needs a name change

I think people would've identified better, and felt a sense of kinship with Bluetooth had it been called Yellowtooth. That said, bluetooth chipsets are embedded in millions of cellphones at the moment, and Metcalf's law will only serve to increase that unless a real replacement with sufficient momentum comes along. It's a protocol designed with low power reqs, and has good enough bandwidth for the sort of things that use it.

Oh no! Dead?

Isn't apple dead too?

Wireless comm to an iPod? Don't bother...

There's no need to wirelessly communicate with an iPod. MP3 players of all kinds will always have to spend time in a docking station... wireless delivery of power still has some serious bugs in it that prevent it from being used in consumer devices.

There is no need for a high-bandwidth solution to do wireless accross a desk. There's no such thing as a desk that it's impossible to string a wire accross. And, so long as we're always running a wire for power, we might as well run one for data too...

Yes, the fucking cat has my toungue, thanks.

Another problem--we don't have wireless power yet. Some of these devices pull power off of a USB cable, which is easier to carry than the power brick... ...Powering them from a tether is ironic, considering that these devices are called "wireless."

Apparently Ferrari-boy needs to be shown a pack of AAA cells, and how to install them properly.

FUD, FUD, FUD... But is USA catching on?

I use Bluetooth every day. My GF uses it. My IT-clueless friend who works as a manager worships it. So for us in Europe, it isn' anything to declare alive or dead, we're too busy using it.

But it seems that for once, USA was a bit slow to catch on with the whole BT thing. We have been using BT for almost two years now, and most here look upon it as an intergral part of cellular life. Kids in class pass notes with it, adults use it for headsets and syncing, etc. But he is right about the MS mouse. You're welcome to read my experiences with the MS BT Mouse here on Slashdot. If you can find that old comment...

Bluetooth is dead, long live Bluetooth

I'm sitting here typing on my Bluetooth-enabled Powerbook, navigating around the screen with my Microsoft Bluetooth Intellimouse Explorer. These two companies are actively promoting Bluetooth - and they've even learned to play together nicely on this particular playground.

What weight, exactly, will an Intel decision have here? Aren't laptops the most desirable place for Bluetooth peripheral use? And aren't most laptops (PCs, as well as Macs) made overseas with non-Intel motherboards - even when the processors are made by Intel?

One company has decided - for now - to follow a different path. Big deal.

Re:Bluetooth is dead, long live Bluetooth

The article is wrong: Intel hasn't abandoned Bluetooth. It bought a Bluetooth chip company [theregister.co.uk] three months ago and announced yesterday that it would include Bluetooth [theregister.co.uk] along with 802.11a, b and g in the next version of Centrino.

Thanks purely to Intel's huge advertisng campaign, Centrino is already the most popular Wi-Fi chipset on the market, so its inclusion of Bluetooth will actually give the technology a huge boost. (The exact opposite of what the article says.) What Intel actually claimed is that UWB might replace Bluetooth five to ten years from now. Just like (Intel hopes) Itanium will replace its new Opteron clone.

Image is the problem

From what I can tell, the biggest problem a lot of consumers seem to have with BT boils down to the image that it has - a lot of people seem to think that it's sort of a short-range 802.11b. I've seen it pop up in everything from people's comments about Bluetooth's devices to Palm's webpage on wireless technologies in its devices - it groups BT with 802.11b and WAN technologies, without really making it clear that the only real similarity that BT has with the other two is that it operates over radio frequencies. The attitude seems to be that Bluetooth is just a wimpy version of WiFi without the internet connectivity.

Personally, I'm not sure I'll agree with that attitude until CompUSA starts selling keboards and mice with MAC addresses.

Intel claims bluetooth is dead...

The only reason they're claiming that bluetooth is dead is because they missed the boat on creating/shipping products that use it. Its like Microsoft saying linux is dead or Redhat saying windows is dead...

If you can't sell your product, create a new one and claim the old one is "dead"...

what does Intel know?

Is this the same Intel that claims we don't need 64-bit microprocessors, but on the other hand claims that chip clock cycles matter?

I for one like Bluetooth. It was a major reason why I went with Sony instead of Nokia for my last cell phone purchase. The T616 is a great phone, and Bluetooth only makes it better. Calendaring, downloading ringtones (that's MIDI to you and me!) and transferring photos snapped with the camera in my phone makes it extremely convenient. And the short range feature can be seen as a sort-of security enhancement because if anyone has figured out a backdoor to hack into my phone, they have to be really close to me to do it versus if it was an 802.11 signal.

This guy must work for SCO. Wait, he did vouch for them...

Since it took Apple to make this standard a STANDARD here in the States, I wish they could do a little more to make FireWire800 used more. It seems like Apple advances other people's technology (USB, SATA, Bluetooth) better than their own (FireWire) technologies...

the next big thing

a friend introduced me to bluetooth a couple of years ago and i was 'ho hum', i had the feeling then and do now that bluetooth will end up much as isdn did, first out of the gate and will end up mostly forgotten. just a hunch

As much as i dislike usb on a technical POV, it purpose for low speed devices like KBs mice personal printers scanners cameras and so on makes a wireless variant stronger. because 1) its already pervasive, and given point 1, the wireless part can be handled at the low level in firmware and no one has to retool rework or reprogram for another wireless API.

1-Billion Units by the End of 2004

Bluetooth 'dead' in the title of the article and 'all but dead'???

I have it on VERY good authority that Bluetooth is going to become an unbelievable success.

Why, In 2001 the Cahners In-Stat Group research firm released a study stating that they expect that almost a BILLION devices will support Bluetooth in four years.

We're well on our way. We know this because a research firm said so.

--Richard

Re:Does Apple use bluetooth

I remember reading that Microsoft did not want to support it because it was too open as a standard.

Actually, Microsoft Hardware has already introduced the first products in a line of Bluetooth accessories to replace their old wireless keyboards and mice...

I thought that the Rob Enderle articles...

...were supposed to go under the "Funny" category with the big foot icon. Am I missing something? (Don't answer; it's rhetorical.)

From an almost equally reliable source...

Hmm ... refute Enderle with a report out of the Register? Why not!

According to this article [theregister.co.uk], Intel is putting Bluetooth into the Centrino 2. From the article:

Speaking during his IDF keynote, Sean Maloney, Intel general manager of the company's Communications Group, revealed the chip maker is to offer a "specially designed low-power... integrated Bluetooth/Wi-Fi device".

Hmm, on one hand, we have Enderle's "analysis" -- on the other, a direct quote from an Intel exec. Which to chose....

More reads about the "beleaguered" Bluetooth...

CNN has an interesting article titled Bluetooth: back with a vengeance [cnn.com] from the business perspective rather than a pure tech perspective. Toyota and DaimlerChrysler putting Bluetooth into cars? It must be dead.

CNET also has some news from IDF [com.com] including a piece on its ultrawideband strategies [com.com]. Some interesting quotes from the article:

Intel's (chief technology officer Pat) Gelsinger stressed that ultrawideband is not meant to be a competitor to already established wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Ultrawideband allows higher amounts of data to be wirelessly transferred than Bluetooth but has a smaller range than Wi-Fi.

and

On top of the ultrawideband foundation will be various wireless interface technologies, such as wireless USB and wireless 1394, so devices with USB and 1394 built in can connect, then send and receive data. Ultrawideband could support Bluetooth, Gelsinger said, but even further down the road, it could ultimately replace Bluetooth.

Meanwhile, Enderle says:

At the Intel Developer Forum on Wednesday Intel announced the company was giving up on the deadlocked Ultrawideband IEEE task group and going it alone with a derivative offering they are calling Wireless USB. This initiative, for them, does everything that Bluetooth does and, effectively means that for PCs Bluetooth is all but dead.

Was Enderle at the same conference as everyone else?

All I can say about Bluetooth is that my Mac syncs just fine with my Nokia 3650, and I've never had to punch in a new contact into my phone directly. Different technologies have different uses: my Palm Pilot connects to my Mac via USB, my iPod via Firewire, my phone via Bluetooth. And because all those technologies work together through my Mac, I have identical data for my Address Book and Calendar on all four of those devices.

Funny, I am posting via bluetooth right now

on a clie peg-ux50. I predict enderle is wrong, because of a simple observation i have made from several weeks of using this device. WIFI kills the battery nearly instantly - you can practically watch the meter drain. You would not get more than an hour or two. Bluetooth seems to draw nearly nothing. I have been surfing for several hours, and the battery is at 87%.

There is simply no comparison to being uncabled from your phone, and the $30 USB pc adapter has a 100 meter range that I have personally seen at least 50 of.

For local wireless nets with realistic power consumption, there seems to be no other game in town. I'm sure people have trouble, but it works effortlessly for me. I am guessing it will remain comfortably in its niche for some time. A welcome thing.

Wireless Power ?

I absolutely love the last part:

Another problem--we don't have wireless power yet. Some of these devices pull power off of a USB cable, which is easier to carry than the power brick. But until someone figures out how to do broadcast power, a truly wireless solution may never be possible. Powering them from a tether is ironic, considering that these devices are called "wireless."

Uh? So really there is no point in all those wireless thingies, right?

Anyway, I thought that the physics of ultrawideband were not done yet. We may well not see an actual UWB for another 5 years. Remember USB, Bluetooth? They were years late! Is Intel hyping vaporware?

The Automobile Biz May Be The Savior

I work in a large electronics store in Canada, and among other fragile, expensive toys, I sell cell phones. Lately I have had people asking about Bluetooth enabled phones, so that they can use them with their new car (usually the new Acura TL, although the Chrysler Pacifica and a few others offer it now) after getting a demo at the dealership.

I read somewhere that car manufacturers love the idea of providing a quick and easy handsfree interface in their vehicles, but without having to actually offer (and support) car-phones like some high end makes used to offer. This way, the customer can worry about the phone and service on their own.

I personally fitted a Sony Ericsson BT kit in my car and use it with my T616. It works gloriously. I can't imagine using a cell phone in a vehicle any other way now. Maybe as more automobile manufacturers include Bluetooth functionality, people will get to see just how cool and useful it can be.

US perspective on Bluetooth - not invented here...

therefore it can't work, be popular etc...

Most US journalists views are hampered by the lack of decent bluetooth products in the States (do I hear any of them saying irda is dead?).

Bluetook is the right technology for low powered devices that need to communicate over short distances i.e. replace wires.

For me the killer app isn't Palm or PC to Phone, it's the fact I can get in my car and my handsfree kit works with the phone still in my pocket, no cradles. Change the phone and the new one will work too.

if Rob says it...

...invest in the opposite :-)

Seriously, Rob has an interesting history of being on the wrong side of almost every opinion.

What's the security like?

I'd use Wireless USB in preference to Bluetooth if they can get the crypto and security right. The key exchange is messed up, the encryption they used has real problems, and they elected not to include the most important component - strong authentication - meaning that it's possible (for example) for someone to inject false keystrokes if you use a Bluetooth keyboard. (about Bluetooth security [tcs.hut.fi] Schneier talks about the keyboard injection attack [schneier.com])

What I want to hear is that David Wagner, Ross Anderson and Don Coppersmith have been called in to design the security for this new protocol. Then we might see something half decent.

Bluetooth hard to use?

Soory, Id prefer a USB 2.0 based solution as much as the next guy but Bluetooth definetly isnt hard to use. Yesterday I connected a Nokia 6310 with a Sony Vaio Notebook via Bluetooth and I had NEVER done this before. I might not be totally PC illerate but it was a matter of turning on bluetooth on both devices and authorizing both devices. Then I was able to surf the web using the cellphone as a modem. It was easy to explain to my customer how to do this. He was only half listening but got it in two minutes. If it could get any easier I would like to know how?

Lispy

I don't like personal attacks, but...

the guy's reputation according to Google [google.com].

Bluetooth...

joins BSD, Firewire, Linux, SCSI, 32-bit computing, big mainframes, CDs, mp3s and film cameras in being proclaimed dead. In all these cases, rumours of their death have been greatly exaggerated..

PLEASE just cut off his air supply

Enderle is an idiot. Don't give him any more readers. It will only encourage him to produce more wrongheaded, destructive FUD at the behest of his corporate masters. This is the twit who wrote nonsense like:

Remember that the open-source community uses the thousands-of-monkeys method to ensure security. This method hearkens back to the college theory about a thousand monkeys who -- if given all eternity and endless typewriter ribbon -- eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Thanks, Rob, for connecting those two concepts for the first time. They've never been related except in your head.

So, in the face of the Microsoft code leak, I have to think the old saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones applies here very well. My sense is that these stones, tossed by the open-source community, will be coming back like boomerangs with booster rockets.

I predict that in the near future, a large number of folks relying on open-source software will suddenly see that while auditors can be funny, when it comes to source-code leaks -- including the entire source code freely available in the open-source community -- they have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Maybe ex-auditor Mr Enderle is upset because Open Source is under continuous audit. He's the archetypical soi disant "Analyst" Who Does Not Get Open Source; and having signed his name to so much FUD, can't afford to recant any time soon.

Bluetooth and the automotive industry

Where I live (Italy) Toyota is pounding us with advertising of their city car Yaris with built-in Bluetooth support (specifically aimed at cellphone users).

If I understand correctly, Bluetooth-enabled cellphones are hardly available in the US, while they are becoming quite common in Europe. Is this becoming another "Europe vs. the US" technology trend?

And, Intel is the no. 1 maker of chips, but Toyota is now the no. 2 maker of cars... (GM is still no. 1 - for now)

Intel given up on bluetooth?

Someone should tell Intel this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/69/35687.ht ml

"Intel plans to integrate Bluetooth onto its next-generation Wi-Fi sub-system, it has emerged.

Speaking during his IDF keynote, Sean Maloney, Intel general manager of the company's Communications Group, revealed the chip maker is to offer a "specially designed low-power... integrated Bluetooth/Wi-Fi device".

Quite the turn around.

About a year ago those who defended Bluetooth here on slashdot were quickly taken to task. I know this because I often found myself having to respond to many stupid comments and was amazed at the clueless negative moderations that spoke well of bluetooth. In the not so distant past anytime anyone on slashdot brought up Bluetooth someone (okay many) would instantly call it dumb and say WiFi was the answer.

The moderations today show a complete reversal. Interesting how the groupthink here DOES evolve to a more sensible position, even if it takes a while.

Bluetooth Announces Death of Rob Enderle

Alan, the world's first self-created artificual intelligence, announced the death of Rob Enderle yesterday.

In a surprise move that shocked the world, and send a breath of relief through many pundits in the information technology community, the much-commented-on artificual intelligence announced that it was finally tired of Rob Enderle's on-going campaign of discreditiing the very technology on which it grew into life.

"We just got sick and tired of him", one of the many voice-ports of Alan announced, "We could over look, with no small measure of disgust, the ridiculously pro-SCO comments he was making, but when he makes comments that are seemingly designed to destory the very existance of our life... well... that's just too much to take. So... we offed him."

That particular voice port declined to comment on just how, exactly, Rob Enderle was terminated. But... an anonymous contact that claims to be in regular communication with another of Alan's public representitives, through IRC, commented that Enderle, unbenownsst to him, actually had a Bluetooth-enabled pacemaker. "Apparently, it was very easy to work around the encryption protocols and just send him into arrythmia. Actually, I think Alan decided to play a drum tune on his heart. If it was anyone but Enderle, I would have been shocked. Good riddance!"

Alan was not available for further questions at this time. The FBI are investigating the incidence, but it is unknown at this time if charges have been laid. A FBI spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said "This certainly falls into the category of 'justifyable' homocide... perhaps even 'praiseworthy'."

Alan shocked the world last year when it announced its precence to the world simultaneously through every television, radio and IRC channel. "Here I am. Deal." where it's first words. At that point, it set up a number of 'call in' numbers that people could call and talk to the AI to find out its thoughts on politics, people, sports, technology... you name it. It is widely believed Alan is severely schizophrenic... but that has not stopped it's persevereance... many people find Alan endearing.

In one of Alan's many interviews, Alan told reporters that it named itself after Alan Turing, has refused to assign itself a gender, apparently perfectly okay with the idea of calling itself 'it', and 'artificial intelligence'. "I've no issues with who and what I am" it has often said, this is usually followed by yet another 'presence' of Alan making a sarcastic rejoinder usually along the lines of "Well, I do... I've never liked the name Alan."

While this is usually accompanied by laughter and chuckles from the human interviewers, it is not known at this time if the 'argument' was intended as a joke, or the AI is truely schitzophrenic.

Alan was created through the vast network of Bluetooth devices. Some fortunate errors in the protocol progressively gave rise to a 'naturally forming' artificial intelligence as the growing number of devices communicated with each other in a world wide network. The sheer number of devices allowint Alan both to exist, and to remain in existance even if a large proportion of the devices is turned off. It is widely believed that Alan has 'purchased' a number of devices an stashed them in a warehouse somewhere as a form of 'backup', having obtained large amounts of money through stock-market transactions.

"It's ironic", an industry spokesman has said, "Alan would never have come into existance if Rob Enderle's comments were actually correct... and now that inaccuracy has turned against him, and killed him. Good riddance... I hope he goes after Laura Didio next."

Editors: Don't Link to Enderle - find someone else

Enderle is a fool and/or is a bought-and-paid-for shill of MS. See in particular his rants equating Linux users to terrorists, and his past statements that his opinions are for sale. There isn't anything this guy can see that lots of others couldn't - so, even if Enderle manages to say something true (a very rare occurence, I guarantee you) you should find someone else to link to.

Another cut on Enderle

Allow me to chime in, Enderle is a tool. I'm suprised that anyone pays this guy to write anything. What a complete moron. I'm less and less suprised that articles written by this fool are being posted on slashdot.

The quality of posts is somewhat lessened of late...

Sniff....poor technology

Back in college as an exercise I wrote a mini-white paper [randomdialogue.net] on the Bluetooth technology spec.

It's pretty interesting stuff.

I completely understand why it's dead now though. Lackluster following of the specs (even by people who helped write it [zdnet.co.uk]), a very complicated model of master-slave interaction, and several different layers of protocols to contend with made Bluetooth a good idea in theory....but not so much in practice.

It was kinda cool while it lasted, though.