Nokia's Wibree Takes on Bluetooth 120
narramissic writes "Nokia has developed a new, short-range wireless technology, called Wibree, that it says is a lot more power efficient than Bluetooth, which means it could be used in smaller and less costly devices. It can also use the same radio and antenna components as Bluetooth, helping keep costs down further. Wibree could compete with Bluetooth in the workplace as a way to link keyboards and other peripherals to computers. But it could also have more interesting applications for consumers, in devices such as wrist watches, toys and sports equipment." What does this say about Bluetooth, considering Nokia is a member of the Bluetooth Promoters group?
It's probably too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
SWEET! I can sync my wrist watch with my computer now? I've always thought that networking a watch to connect w/ my computer and transferring the time over was soooo much more efficient than using those little dials.
Now imagine the new hacking vulnerabilities! Millions of corporate workers late; all of whome blame hackers for altering their alarm clocks!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Seems bluetooth may have suffered from design by committee, ie too many conflicting requirements limiting its longevity.Whereas this oddly named contender is claimed not only to be much lower power (definitely a powerful factor in mobile tech) but also higher bandwidth and channel hopping, a la UWB. This, combined with the ability to reuse existing design of antennas etc, may well make it a winner.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect [wikipedia.org]
It also happens to be a standard:
http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG1.html [ieee802.org]
It doesn't matter so much whether this new system is better or even marginally cheaper. What matters is, the number of people and devices which support it. By being bluetooth compatible, device manufacturers are also compatible with almost every mobile phone, most PCs, earpieces, printers etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I think bluetooth sucks. The best technology (like wlan) is there without me noticing it, but if it's not there, it's anno
Stupid name kills technology (Score:5, Interesting)
So what is a company to do? How about rebrand the technology with a worse name than it originally had? That's the ticket!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid name kills technology (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in the US, but Bluetooth is pretty popular in Europe actually. It is very common for blue collar workers to have handsfree headsets for instance. Very handy to be able to talk to your colleagues on the roof and still have your hands free.
What does this say about Bluetooth? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does this say about Bluetooth? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If the new tech is compatable with bluetooth radios and antennas, how does this rage against the Ericsson machine?
Further, I wonder if it's simply a matter of a software change on the hardware - which would make manufacturing of this stuff a no-brainer, and bluetooth receivers could quickly become dual-mode receivers.
I think that radio != chipset. (Score:2)
So saying that it uses the same radio as Bluetooth may not mean that it's just a drop-in software change; the chipset which actually decodes what the radio recieves and does useful things with it, may be totally different.
I assume that the radios are basically off-the-shelf items; I'm sure you can go to any number of manufacturers and get them (Motorola, Analog Devices, National, etc.); t
Re:What does this say about Bluetooth? (Score:4, Informative)
I am not just making this up. If you read the Finnish epic, which is said to characterize the finnish temperament, the hero Vainamoinen is actually an anti-hero. He is born old, never in his prime. One of the first stories about him is when he approaches a young bathing maiden and she runs away screaming. In the climax of the story, he rallies the troops to win back a magical device from a tribe of harpies, only to lose it in the sea during the epic battle. He's just not a winner.
The parent I posed my original topic had said that 'a better tech had come along'. What a socially naive geek perspective. Sure, new things just drop out of the sky like clockwork. People are never motivated by petty social identies, like Ohio State vs. Michigan, US vs. Canada, MS vs. Apple, Ericsson vs. Nokia, or Finland vs. Swedend.
So my votes goes for a Nokia vs. Ericsson, Finland vs. Sweden thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I had to learn either Swedish or Finnish, it'll be
Re: (Score:2)
Hungarian and Finnish are mutually unintelligible. They look pretty dissimilar in written form. The closest language to Finnish is Estonian -- I'm not sure if Estonia is considered Europe. It was part of the Soviet Union; now it is independent and a member of the EU. Finns and Estonians can *basically* understand each other and the written lang
Re: (Score:1)
Finnish has been spoken in finland atleast about 3000 years, long before Huns (which actually invaded middle and southern europe in 4th century, never scandinavia).
If any "european" people would be related to Huns it would be Turks (which originate from same area in central asia). Together cooperating with Huns were also some southern fenno-ugric tribes (
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, I thin
Re:Ericsson is not "#1 seller of Bluetooth chipset (Score:2)
Too many technologies (Score:5, Interesting)
The same can be said about just about any new tech that is to replace and not be compatible with old tech. USB, IMHO, did it right. USB2.0 is backwards compatible with USB1.1
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo? (Score:2, Funny)
It tell me that ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Bluetooth 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Bluetooth 2.0? (Score:5, Informative)
Higher data rates, higher sound quality for headsets, error correction for headset audio (read: significantly increased range and quality).
They still haven't fixed the compatibility nightmares of Bluetooth. God forbid you might want to use a Motorola headset with a Treo for example! It'll work, but barely, and most functionality (such as picking up a call from the headset) won't work.
The state of Bluetooth stacks for Windows is even worse. Microsoft's stack doesn't seem to support anything other than the serial profile - no headset audio, no AD2P. Only 50% of the stacks available a few months ago supported headset audio, even fewer supported AD2P (high quality stereo audio). Every single Bluetooth stack insists on making the headset the default audio device for the entire system, which is useless (and incredibly annoying) when you only want to use it for a SIP/IAX softphone, Skype, Teamspeak, Ventrilo, or similar stuff. Last but not least, even though most Bluetooth stacks support the majority of hardware chipsets out there, every single one is locked to a specific device vendor. i.e. if you buy a Dell with a CSR chipset, it'll come with the Toshiba bluetooth stack (worthless since it puts all serial devices at COM40 or above which most apps don't support). The WIDCOMM stack works with CSR chipsets, but is locked to whatever vendor's CSR-based dongle you got the stack with. You can't even upgrade to a recent version in most cases. (Buy a dongle with a WIDCOMM 3.x stack, and you can't upgrade to 5.x legally).
From what I've heard, both Microsoft and Logitech BT keyboards/mice don't work well unless you use the dongle and BT stack that came with the hardware - what's the point of being Bluetooth in that case?
About the only Bluetooth device I've ever used that worked well is my GPS receiver. I've tried 3 different headsets with my Treo and 2-3 different BT stacks on my PC for use with those headsets and have never been satisfied with the results.
Bluetooth works fine on a Mac... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Currently I use a Logitech bluetooth mouse which "just works", as well as an Apple bluetooth keyboard which "just works", as one would expect
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe brand-specific? (Score:2)
Then again,
Re: (Score:2)
"The computer doesn't give me crap about using some crummy generic USB BT dongle, either. (Unlike Windows where I'd need to install vendor-supplied drivers.)"
I assume that's because you're using Apple's builtin BT? Fair comparison. Windows notebooks come with BT built in frequently as well. You don't get the problem you describe with those either.
"Then again, the phone has also worked pretty well with my IBM laptop and its BT implementation, so maybe more credit is due to M
Re: (Score:2)
To my knowledge, both Apple and Dell use Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR) chipsets. There is basically no difference between the two in terms of the BT hardware, and a large portion of the USB BT dongles out there (which use the exact same CSR hardware). In fact, in the case of Dell's Bluetooth modules (at least the 350
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't believe address book synchronization is part of the Bluetooth standard, so I definitely agree with you that compatibility is an issue. However, it's not an issue with Bluetooth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Missing Sync is the software but it isn't part of OS X and the claim was that BT "just worked" with a mac. That is not true for cell phones. Some do work, Moto and some SE in my experience, and address sync *should* be part of that. Ideally, you should be able to sync *any* BT cell phone address book to mac and then back to any other cell phone. That most definitely does not work. It doesn't work in Windows either, but then again Windows isn't the one that adve
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. iSync in Tiger doesn't need a separate conduit, although it used to. Having said that, I don't necessarily understand why installing drivers/software for a phone would not be a part of a reasonable "what is necessary to make it work" rigamarole.
I mean, if I want to use a printer, I have to install drivers, right? Some drivers are bundled with the OS, some are not. Not a big deal.
"Ever tried syncing a WM5 phone to OS X?" Eww. No. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is reasonable, yet mac people like to make a point of "it just works". If you install phone drivers on Windows then "it just works" too. Getting phones supported in Windows and OS X requires basically the same effort and that was my point. I think integrated PIM apps and iSync is a great feature of OS X but I'd like to
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, OK. Like I said, sometimes the drivers are bundled, sometimes they're not. Where do you find drivers for syncing say, a Sony Ericsson phone with Windows?
"I'd like to see more stuff work out of the box."
Well, sure. But you're not seriously trying to say that OS X's syncing system is the same as Windows', are you? Because that'd be pretty silly.
"phones besides that they all suck is that none are supported by OS X"
Huh. My perspective is differen
Re: (Score:2)
If what you're saying is that OS X is better than Windows for cell phone because a small number of phones are supported out of the box, that's pretty weak argument. Neither system meets the needs of the typical user without 3rd party software. With 3rd party software they are essentially the same except that Windows supports more phones overall than
Re: (Score:1)
Mmmmmkay. I don't recall ever saying that, but whatever floats your boat.
"Apple themselves say that the Treo 650 requires the purchase of mark/space software in order to be supported my Tiger"
Mmmmmkay. Worked fine for me, before installing MarkSpace. It works BETTER with MarkSpace, which is why I bought it, but it works adequately...right out of the box. Or you could in
Re: (Score:2)
And I wasn't saying OS X and Windows were the same, either, but whatever floats your boat.
I'm glad you're not saying that. Just what, then, makes OS X superior to Windows for cell phones then?
"Worked fine for me, before installing MarkSpace."
OK. It didn't work fine for me nor does it for Apple. That's why Apple says it doesn't work and I know precisely why. Palm changed the interface to their syncing to support certain enhancement
Re: (Score:1)
OK, that wasn't my initial contention, but whatever. I just don't happen to think that the problems of syncing phones is a Bluetooth specific issue. The interconnection works, the software support just isn't there. In my personal experience, the software support is better on OSX than on Windows, but you seem to have a different opinion, which is great.
"Perhaps you haven't had to deal with the hourly or minute-by-minute resets with the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert on BT but I think it's complicated. BT defines device profiles which are very specific things. If the profiles are sufficient and are supported properly on both sides, then it works. Because of that, I think it may be a BT-specific issue but I don't know.
"In my personal experience, the software support is better on OSX than on Windows,..."
Actually, I think I do agree with you regarding BT
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could be more specific?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's well known that cell phones are problematic. If they weren't, Apple wouldn't feel the need to enumerate the ones that were supported.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/isync/devices
BTW, this is not a list of BT supported phones, it's a list of ALL supported phones. Some don't work with BT. Not a very big list is it?
Re: (Score:1)
now THAT works.
I use bluetooth keyboard/mice on a mac (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not flaming the Mac as I own one but their bluetooth support is not much better than Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
I think in any wireless technology (802.11, bluetooth) we see a fine example of corporate greed, backstabbing & "screw the customer" mentality in its purest form.
Doesn't compute (Score:2)
Why not? They could still run Windows.
It's obvious that it's not mac is better than windows, but it's bluetooth that sucks.
If the only place Bluetooth falters is in fact on Widnows, I think you can draw your own conclusions about the origins of the sucking.
If 100 million people use the same brand of vaccuum cleaner, it doesn't mean that wouldn't suck either. In probabalistic terms were talking indepe
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't say much (Score:3, Interesting)
From the summary:
It says that Bluetooth is years old and now some that is (possibly) better has come along, nothing more.
Successors to Bluetooth (Score:2)
It says our worst fears were true... (Score:2, Insightful)
It says that the stupid Trademarkable Name(TM) thing wasn't a one off, and we can expect all future networking interfaces to have some stupid name in the future. Not only will that be insanely annoying, but it will allow companies to collect royalties to be able to claim compatability with 'open' protocols indefinatly. Yes, technology companies have finally found a direct revenue way to exploit the previously harmless trademark laws, and to bypass that pesky patent term len
Security this time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wibree vs ZigBee? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know BT and ZigBee [zigbee.org] (about ZigBee [wikipedia.org]), but never heard about Wibree. I'm pretty disappointed that Nokia wants to go with this proprietary approach.
Anyway, there's a lot going on in IEEE 802.15 (Personal Area Network) [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
I've got Bluetooth on my phone, and never use it. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I bought the phone, I also bought a Bluetooth headset. I gave up on the Bluetooth pretty quickly: The headset would only run for about five hours before needing to be recharged, and the phone's standby time was cut down massively.
This isn't a complaint about Bluetooth as such. It's more that current devices, as delivered, don't provide long-enough standby time, never mind talk time, when Bluetooth is enabled.
Re:I've got Bluetooth on my phone, and never use i (Score:2)
Sony Ericssons tend to pulse/ping the connection, only turning on the full link when there is a call, giving far greater standby times.
Again, its more a case of different devices doing different things. Each has its advantages and disadvantages
Re:I've got Bluetooth on my phone, and never use i (Score:2)
Re:I've got Bluetooth on my phone, and never use i (Score:2)
Not to mention you look like some kind of massive dork from a sci-fi movie and are usually perceived by the general public as talking to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonetheless, I wanted to try it so I could have recordings of "Champs Elysees" (s French current affairs CD I get every month) play with the ability to interrupt on an incoming call. I thought Bluetooth is expensive in standby, then I tried using it to play MP3s. That was a power hog, let me tell you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Golden golf clubs (Score:1)
Would that gold club be an iron or a wood? Maybe its a putting club?
Anyway, I guess any rich golfers that have a gold golf club won't mind the extra expense of a radio linked computer sensor... but it would spoil their boast of "My club is solid gold!".
The problem with Bluetooth.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there is the cost. 10k to list your product. If you want to add something to it after you listed it...10k please. Not to mention the testing. 30k please.
Bluetooth was going to be less then 2 bucks per radio. It's still almost double that. The Bluetooth SIG is way out of control.
IMO Nokia is smart to jump ship. However, they cant go it alone. If they were able to get Motorola on board and perhaps Samsung, I can see no reason why a lower cost alternative would not work. Assuming that data rates are there.
Re: (Score:1)
In a cell phone, the main problem with BT is battery life. Simplified, a cellphone spends most of it's life in deep sleep mode, with all radios turned off. Every 1.28 second (google Slot Cycle Index) the phone wakes up and looks for a page. If it doesn't get one it goes back to sleep. The entire process takes 10-20 ms. When the radios are on the phone draws about 80 ma from the battery, when sleeping 1-5 ma (depending on the phone).
B
Re: (Score:2)
Bluetooth 2? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Because making it backwards compatible with Bluetooth would have nullified the major gains of the new technology; lower cost, and lower power consumption...
Re: (Score:1)
If they named it Bluetooth 3.0 or whatever, they'd still have to license it through the consortium.
- Jonathan
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Half of the people in here don't know bluetooth 2.0 has been out since 2004. Talk about confusion. If half of slashdot don't even know about it, forget about
Re: (Score:2)
Immediate solutions include reducing license costs and better marketing. Does Wibree solve any of the issues or is it just another nice sounding technology with the same limitations?
BTW not sure what you meant by hard to use or incompatible. If you are talking about the Windows implementation then it sucks
They should've called it Bluetooth 2.0 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
my $0.02 of opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Wibreee vs UWB? (Score:2, Insightful)
It says.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's about all
Not that Bluetooth isn't good and that Nokia don't like promoting it or using it, but Bluetooth is not a panacea - just a standard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We don't need another proprietary standard... it looks like Nokia is just trying to have some standard that they can own so we'll buy more of their stuff... time to run away from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, there can't be one standard which fits all devices. It's impossible to define without creating a bunch of semi-compatible subsets which need bridging devices.. which would defeat the object of a standard for all.
Secondly, Wibree is also Bluetooth compatible, but lower data rate, and lower range than the higher end protocols.
Thirdly, ZigBee is for *extremely* low data rates and focussed on home automation.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA states that Wibree requires "dual mode" chips to be compatible with Bluetooth... sounds like two different protocols on one chip. ZibBee also can use the 2.4 Gig band so I guess it is as "compatible" with Bluetooth as Wibree.
It still looks to me that Nokia is trying to design a new proprietary standard and force it on the market so they can make big bucks from lice
Re: (Score:2)
It still looks to me that Nokia is trying to design a new proprietary standard and force it on the market so they can make big bucks from licensing.
Which is what Ericsson did with Bluetooth, way back then. They even went to the trouble of passing it through IEEE as 802.15.1
Re: (Score:2)
I'll all for innovation and I'm happy to see companies making money but there is no benefit to consumers here since the functionality can be addressed with the 802.15.1 through 5 devices. In this case Nokia will stuff the channel with this equipment and consumers will have to buy new peripherals, etc. I'd rath
Re: (Score:2)
If Wibree is dual-mode then it's not bad, is it? Nobody is going to lose Bluetooth on Wibree devices, in fact they are going to gain battery life. Which is good!!
ZigBee using the 2.4Ghz band does not mean it is "compatible". Wibree is compatible in that it HAS Bluetooth functionality, not that it is going to further clutter the 2.4GHz band with more devices..
Confusing Users 2.0 (Score:1)
Now I'm really confused (Score:1)
Some facts, some opinions (Score:2)
Same antenna and radio means ... (Score:2)