Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Wireless Networking Hardware

Rob Enderle Announces Death of Bluetooth 514

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rob Enderle Announces Death of Bluetooth

Comments Filter:
  • Rant. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) * <mark AT seventhcycle DOT net> on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:25AM (#8336751) Homepage

    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. (Score:5, Informative)

      by RobPiano ( 471698 ) * on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:35AM (#8336831)
      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. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by randyest ( 589159 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:04AM (#8337016) Homepage
        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. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by penguinstorm ( 575341 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:45AM (#8337230) Homepage
          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. (Score:5, Informative)

            by randyest ( 589159 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @02:04AM (#8337337) Homepage
            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. (Score:4, Funny)

            by gnu-generation-one ( 717590 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:50PM (#8341577) Homepage
            "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. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by useosx ( 693652 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @02:11AM (#8337356)
          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. (Score:4, Informative)

            by Merk ( 25521 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @02:01PM (#8341703) Homepage

            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. (Score:3, Funny)

        by yroJJory ( 559141 )
        That sounds about right. If Apple is beleaguered and dying, Bluetooth must also be going away soon.

      • Re:Rant. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jcr ( 53032 ) <.jcr. .at. .mac.com.> on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:12AM (#8337059) Journal
        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

        • What matters for bluetooth is not whether a pundit thinks...

          Waitaminnit! That would imply that the pundits are actually not the all-seeing oracles they make themselves out to be!

          Take note of this pronouncement by Enderle and make sure to use it as a sig file a few years from now, just to remind folks that pundits ain't always right.

          Sorta like this: "Stick a fork in 'em - this Apple is cooked."
          Robert Thomson, Financial Post, 2/20/2003

      • Re:Rant. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TheLittleJetson ( 669035 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @02:28AM (#8337429)
        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. (Score:5, Funny)

      by miu ( 626917 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:58AM (#8336981) Homepage Journal
      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. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by waynelorentz ( 662271 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:45AM (#8337227) Homepage
        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.
    • Actually (Score:5, Funny)

      by hobuddy ( 253368 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:07AM (#8337036)

      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.

    • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Friday February 20, 2004 @02:00AM (#8337312) Homepage Journal
      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

      • by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @04:22AM (#8337728) Journal
        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. (Score:3, Funny)

      by useosx ( 693652 )
      I think the goal is that enough /. mockery will result in the old "Rob...you'll never work in this town again" routine. Hey, maybe those +5 mods do make a difference.

      </sarcasm>
    • Re:Rant. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Asprin ( 545477 ) <gsarnold@@@yahoo...com> on Friday February 20, 2004 @07:28AM (#8338322) Homepage Journal

      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.
  • by momerath2003 ( 606823 ) * on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:26AM (#8336754) Journal
    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! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:51AM (#8336938)
      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.
  • DAMN! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:29AM (#8336772) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:DAMN! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Trillan ( 597339 )

      Well, Bluetooth rocks, but iSync is astonishingly slow compared to (for instance) Palm Desktop.

      I really hope Apple fixes it at some point, because I hate having time to go get a cup of coffee waiting for my T68i and iPod to sync because I want to install software to my Tungsten T3.

      What do you think of the BT200? I'm in the market for a bluetooth headset. Does it work with both the phone and the Powerbook?

  • by IntelliTubbie ( 29947 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:29AM (#8336777)
    If Bluetooth is dead, then how come my Bluetooth keyboard is working perfeSIGNAL LOST
  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:30AM (#8336789) Homepage
    gave up

    That doesnt mean Apple, cell-phone manufacturers and other peripheral manufactuters will.
    • Re:Only Intel (Score:5, Insightful)

      by randyest ( 589159 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:48AM (#8336904) Homepage
      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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

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

        Case in point: InfiniBand

        Counterpoint: AMD64. Intel has been pushing a non-backward-compatible 64-bit architecture for years now. More recently, AMD decided to extend the x86 instruction set to 64 bits in more or less the same way the 386 extended it to 32. The market reacted favorably (if I'm not mistaken, more Opteron servers have already sold since its introduction than Itanic se

      • Re:Only Intel (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @03:22AM (#8337598)
        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."
    • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:49AM (#8336909)
      Indeed. It's silly to think of Bluetooth as dead when it's finally gotten BSD support.

      KFG
    • Re:Only Intel (Score:5, Interesting)

      by madcow_ucsb ( 222054 ) <slashdot2@@@sanks...net> on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:49AM (#8336913)
      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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) *
      And I think that's because Intel isn't known for making human interface devices, which is what Bluetooth is best for.

      Bluetooth's goal is to replace the wire between our headset and our phone, the keyboard and our computer and things like that. When the data only needs to move 3 feet but we can't promise a line of site, Bluetooth is the best technology out there.

      Seeing that Intel doesn't make any of those things, who cares?
  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:30AM (#8336790)
    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.
  • by Bobdoer ( 727516 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:31AM (#8336794) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Gary Yogurt ( 664063 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:32AM (#8336801)
    911-987AD [wikipedia.org]
  • I doubt it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by codeonezero ( 540302 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:33AM (#8336811)
    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... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:59AM (#8336993)
      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.
    • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:37AM (#8337192)
      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
  • by segment ( 695309 ) <<gro.xirtilop> <ta> <lis>> on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:34AM (#8336815) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Cowabunga ( 738559 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:34AM (#8336817)
    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.
  • Uh, about that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flynns ( 639641 ) <<moc.spggodpot> <ta> <naes>> on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:35AM (#8336826) Homepage Journal
    ...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?
    • Out of curiosity, am I the only one who hadn't heard of "Wireless USB" before this article?

      Don't worry, it will probably have a less technical sounding name before it's rolled out to consumers. Probably "USB peak-speed" to join "USB full-speed" and "USB high-speed".
    • Wireless USB was just announced yesterday. It sounds quite useful, but you won't be able to buy a wireless USB gadget until (at least) Christmas 2005. It'll add at least $20 to the price of a device (compared to $5 for Bluetooth and 50 cents for regular USB), so it won't be used much until the price comes down.
    • Re:Uh, about that... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:59AM (#8337309)
      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...
  • by i)ave ( 716746 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:37AM (#8336843)
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BortQ ( 468164 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:37AM (#8336845) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:38AM (#8336847)
    These so called Bluetooth Standard Devices have long been known to be dying. This is yesterday's news.
  • by aurum42 ( 712010 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:39AM (#8336849)
    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.
  • by natefanaro ( 304646 ) <natefanaro@gmail.com> on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:39AM (#8336851) Homepage Journal
    Isn't apple dead too?
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:40AM (#8336856)
    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...
    • Not mp3 players of all kinds... Pulling your car into the driveway and having your car mp3 player synch wirelessly with your computer is a lot better than pulling some bigass hard drive cartrige out of your trunk. Granted i dont know if such a thing exists yet(the wireless verion), and unfortunatly it gets to cold here for HD based car mp3 players...
  • by DrunkenTerror ( 561616 ) * on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:41AM (#8336864) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:42AM (#8336870)
    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...
  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:43AM (#8336877)
    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.

    • by cyberformer ( 257332 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:50AM (#8337260)
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:48AM (#8336905)
    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.
  • by HockeyPuck ( 141947 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:53AM (#8336955)
    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"...

  • by The Lynxpro ( 657990 ) <lynxpro&gmail,com> on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:03AM (#8337013)
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:20AM (#8337108) Journal
    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.
  • by repetty ( 260322 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:32AM (#8337157) Homepage
    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
  • by Hannibal_Ars ( 227413 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:39AM (#8337196) Homepage
    ...were supposed to go under the "Funny" category with the big foot icon. Am I missing something? (Don't answer; it's rhetorical.)
  • by finelinebob ( 635638 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:48AM (#8337246) Homepage


    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....

    • by finelinebob ( 635638 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @03:05AM (#8337549) Homepage

      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.

  • by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:49AM (#8337255) Journal
    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 ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AdamInParadise ( 257888 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:51AM (#8337268) Homepage
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @02:27AM (#8337425)
    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.
  • by Andy Davies ( 5700 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @03:20AM (#8337590) Homepage
    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.

  • by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @03:45AM (#8337648)
    ...invest in the opposite :-)

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

  • by Paul Crowley ( 837 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @03:45AM (#8337650) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @04:00AM (#8337678) Homepage
    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
  • by tin_the_fatty ( 464704 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @05:49AM (#8338008)
    the guy's reputation according to Google [google.com].
  • by adrianbaugh ( 696007 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @06:19AM (#8338076) Homepage Journal
    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..
  • by toby ( 759 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @07:35AM (#8338350) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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".
  • by juuri ( 7678 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @08:52AM (#8338749) Homepage
    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.
  • by Chmarr ( 18662 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:12AM (#8339967)
    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."

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...