Bluetooth Technology and Implications

Tutorials and Tools

Is Bluetooth really the wave of the future?

To be fair, it must be admitted that not all pundits agree on whether Bluetooth technology is truly the wave of the future. Mark Riseley, an analyst at Inteco, has said, "People are not crying out for Bluetooth devices. They will inevitably be asking, "Do I want to switch on the lights using my mobile phone?" It seems a bit like taking a hammer to crack a nut and may not be considered worth the money."

Let's first look at the potential applications-a difficult task, considering the virtually infinite nature of them. So, we'll start with Riseley's point of view. He refers to applications like switching on lights with a mobile phone. Certainly, such applications are possible. However, that's a minor one. So many more have far greater practicallity. As this article mentioned earlier, the removal of the spaghetti of cords surrounding a PC is one that most non-technical (and technical) users can relate to. Of course, there are the esthetics of not having that junk around. Beyond that, though, there is more practical consideration for removing it: the danger associated with tripping or electrical shock from worn cables. When the typical user sees the advantages there-coupled with the likely low cost of Bluetooth devices-it seems likely that moving to products that provide the technology will seem like a good choice.

However, it is not the average user who leads the way in acceptance of new technologies; it is the business person on the go, the traveler, who demands products to stay in touch with the home office and home, and to make giving presentations easier. These are the people who jumped on cell phones and PDIs. The convenience of checking for e-mail while stuck in traffic is a strong motivator. The ease of linking with a printer or fax at the client's office, which Bluetooth can provide, must be irresistible. To be able to give a presentation with a laptop and not have to deal with cables and plugging in peripherals is a dream come true.

Then, there are the conveniences of gadgets able to do double duty. "Where did I leave the TV remote?" can become a question of the past when the cell phone that just happens to be in your coat pocket will do the channel switching just as well. Picture yourself in the car on the way to a client's office when you realize you've forgotten to bring a file that's on your home PC. Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have to turn around, go back home, get out of the car, boot up the PC, dig out a blank floppy disk, copy the file, and then head back out? Imagine dialing the Internet from your cell phone and downloading the file while you drive along.

What about the competition?

If, as seems inevitable, some sort of wireless standard is the wave of the future, consideration must be given to a competing standard, the IrDA (Infrared Data Association) specification. This specification also defines a wireless protocol. Its characteristics include:

Already proven universal standard for wireless connections, with an installed base of over 50 million.

An existing wide range of platforms.

Existing design for cable replacement.

Backward compatibility with previous standards.

Narrow 30 degree angle connections, which helps assure a lack of interference with other devices, but limits ease of application.

Fast data transfers, currently up to four megabits per second, with 16 megabits per second in development.

It is currently being used in a wide variety of applications, such as notebooks, desktops, PDIs, printers, phones, pagers, modems , cameras, LANs, medical and industrial equipment, and watches. In other words, both Bluetooth and IrDA are applied to the same types of devices. So, why would Bluetooth be successful when there's already a successful wireless standard?

The answer is that the two standards will likely coexist, as they have complementary strengths and weaknesses. The narrow, point and shoot, type of application, such as crowded situations in which two people wish to exchange information while others are trying to do the same thing, is a strength of IrDA. In such situations, a Bluetooth device, which is omnidirectional, would be at a disadvantage, as it might have trouble finding an individual device among many. However, Bluetooth has distinct advantages in other situations. It can make connections through walls, and once a connection is established, it isn't necessary for any of the devices to remain stationary. The cost of Bluetooth implementation is higher than for IrDA. Presently, it runs about $2.00 for IrDA, and will likely run around $20.00 for the first Bluetooth devices, but drop to $5.00 after the initial implementations.

This is not, of course, an indepth look at IrDA. It should suffice, though, to say that there are advantages to both technologies. More importantly, it is not necessary to choose one over the other, as they can coexist on the same device, with the appropriate one activated depending on the circumstances. Thus, to present one as superior to the other would be inaccurate. It is better to say that awareness of the differences is a more important focus, and that both are likely to exist in the coming age of wireless communications.

Implications for the PC world

There has been some murmuring to the effect that the coming wireless world will spell the end of desktop PCs. Such an approach seems rather narrow-something of an either/or proposition. A wireless world (with the exception of power cords, still a necessary evil) could prove to be a boon to PCs. There is, of course, the convenience of no spaghetti-wired desks, but more importantly, it would make the PC even more usable. Getting data to a PC is often one of the more difficult tasks. Dealing with storage media and their myriad of formats will become a thing of the past. Having to juggle peripherals that must share ports will no longer be a problem. Getting data from a laptop to a desktop will be simple. Adding a new peripheral will be a simple thing, instead of the nightmare it sometimes implies. This writer, at least, can hardly wait.