future of bluetooth?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
just curious what will become of Bluetooth... it seems that its really not going anywhere, and with the pending USB 1.0 wireless standard approaching shortly, I wonder how much longer it will be around.



On a side note, I have had nothing but issues with various bluetooth devices from phones to headsets to keyboards...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it gets left behind for something that M$ wholeheartedly endorses



    But I've had no problem with BT ... my Treo syncs and transfers files with my macs at the touch of a button ... no problem. I tried a Jabra BT headset for a while, but it had occasional satic problems so I returned it ... no problem getting it set up though (even worked with the pBook.) As for the BT mouse (Apple) ... I recently got it to use with the pBook and I love it ... easy to transport, no wires to plug in ... excellent travel mouse!
  • Reply 2 of 16
    rolandgrolandg Posts: 632member
    The biggest problems Bluetooth faces are, IMO:



    - lack of support from leading device makers (Nokia, for example, equipes very few phones with BT),

    - unresolved security issues
  • Reply 3 of 16
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    I'd venture to guess the ultimate goal of wireless USB is to replace both wired USB and bluetooth.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    I think its an issue of non standardized protocols... seems like some devices are better able to connect than others. It doesn't help that apart from mobile phones & certain PDA's made by SonyEricsson and to an extent Nokia and Motorola, hardly anything else runs off bluetooth... I have a better time working with Bluetooth on a Mac than winXP even with SP2, which supposedly added "native" BT support...



    sucks.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    I keep waking up to find a feature of my computer I have yet to find a use for. Why?
  • Reply 6 of 16
    rolandgrolandg Posts: 632member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    I keep waking up to find a feature of my computer I have yet to find a use for. Why?



    Care to explain? Bluetooth could be quite useful if manufactureres actually started adapting BT for wireless peripheral connectivity.



    As mentioned above, Nokia has very few phones supporting it, most Logitech (and others' for that matter) wireless input devices either use their own propriatory RF-recievers or BT protocols that don't seem to be supported on the Mac.



    I like integrated BT better than a lot of cable clutter and a handful of propriatory boxes and USB sticks.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    Own 2 cell phones. Neither works BT. (one is a Blackberry)

    Own 2 iPods. Neither works BT.

    Own 2 different wireless keyboards and mice. Both are Logictech, both work great. BT rare and much more expensive.

    Own 1 Pocket PC. Only works BT with my PCs.

    Own 4 cordless phones in my house. No BT.

    Own 1 Digital Media Remote. Infrared, No BT.

    Own 1 Digital Camera (sony). New, and No BT.

    Own 1 Digital Video Camera. (sony), also new. No BT.



    What is left in my digital lifestyle for them to 'win me over with'?



    I was looking for BT to be much more common. It feels like the UltraSCSI card in my older G4... why do I have it again? Oh yeah.. incase...



    EDIT: It's like a technology without a good product if you ask me. Headsets? Come on... you have *got* to be kidding me. Is that really the best they can do?



    EDIT EDIT: My point is that if the technology doesn't have a home.. maybe it *should* die? I need more throughput then BT has to offer anyway...
  • Reply 8 of 16
    rolandgrolandg Posts: 632member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    Own 2 cell phones. Neither works BT. (one is a Blackberry)

    Own 2 iPods. Neither works BT.

    Own 2 different wireless keyboards and mice. Both are Logictech, both work great. BT rare and much more expensive.

    Own 1 Pocket PC. Only works BT with my PCs.

    Own 4 cordless phones in my house. No BT.

    Own 1 Digital Media Remote. Infrared, No BT.

    Own 1 Digital Camera (sony). New, and No BT.

    Own 1 Digital Video Camera. (sony), also new. No BT.



    What is left in my digital lifestyle for them to 'win me over with'?



    I was looking for BT to be much more common. It feels like the UltraSCSI card in my older G4... why do I have it again? Oh yeah.. incase...



    EDIT: It's like a technology without a good product if you ask me. Headsets? Come on... you have *got* to be kidding me. Is that really the best they can do?



    EDIT EDIT: My point is that if the technology doesn't have a home.. maybe it *should* die? I need more throughput then BT has to offer anyway...




    The situation you describe is exactly what I am complaining about. Most of the peripherals you own could profit from a proper BT implementation. And BT's bandwidth should be sufficient for most:



    - cellphones and pdas for synchronisation of contacts, calenders etc.

    - input devices like keyboards, mice, remote controlls



    BT is not suited for mass-storage devices including the iPod and your photo and video equipment - those would require WLAN which is too demanding on the batteries. Those will stay wired for the foreseeable future.



    BT is still an emerging technology: The problem is (similar to USB in the beginning stages) that very few manufacturers support it and even fewer users feel a need.



    USB slowly gained support (in part to due the patient persistence on Apple's side) and now hardly anyone can imagine a life without (and with a wide variety a ports like PS/2, ADB, serial, parallel, SCSI and whatnot).



    In the end it is all about simplification and standardisation. And one fact that I don't understand is that BT devices are more expensive than propriatory wireless devices. Usually standards make production cheaper.



    P.S.: Do you have your cordless phones connected to any computer? It would be nice to sync those with the contacts stored on computer and further interact with it. BT could be put to perfect use here.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    nathan22tnathan22t Posts: 317member
    Danger (the Sidekick) really needs to get on board with BT with their next stuff
  • Reply 10 of 16
    21122112 Posts: 36member
    I read an article several months ago with Bluetooth's creator (I think he works at Ericsson?) and he was in the process of trying to make the protocol faster and more secure, but like many of you say, the window may be closing.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    I'd venture to guess the ultimate goal of wireless USB is to replace both wired USB and bluetooth.



    Bingo.



    Bluetooth is somewhat over-complicated for cable-replacement, and somewhat undercomplicated for wireless device networking. It stradles a fence, and we'll start to see much better alternatives in the next few years with things like Wireless USB, ever more efficient 802.11 chipsets, and ever improving radio technology being worked into proprietary radios, which should continue to dominate the overall market the way the do currently.



    The only part of Bluetooth that will survive is its cousin ZigBee, which is what Bluetooth should have been in the first place. Bluetooth's consortium-led birth is unsurprisingly the reason why it will die: it tried to be everything to everyone, which will always be impossible.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    power consumption might be a factor in all these?





    i wanted everything to be wireless when i got my PB.. but now i am using an USB mouse, USB to sync my phone, USB for external HD... USB to get pictures off my camera... ahhh.. damn it..



    if they could only make a BT hub with USB ports... make that 4 USB ports.. 2.0! (how come there is no such thing?)



    sorry, i am a noob, how fast does BT transmit anyway?
  • Reply 13 of 16
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    It's always seemed that bluetooth is a technology in search of a purpose.



    Most people just don't have a huge need (or desire) for current wireless gadgets. Wifi took off because it allows you to browse the web from your couch, the kitchen, and on the road. Web browsing is something that the general public has a need for; banking, travel information, taxes, weather, news... etc.



    Bluetooth's functionality doesn't offer much to most consumers. Wires are cheaper and easier for connecting up camcorders, printers, and digital cameras. No batteries or connection configuration whatsoever. Bluetooth doesn't offer faster speed, nor does it allow you to do tasks in a more convenient location such as paying bills from the front porch.



    Not that bluetooth is useless. I'm sure a good number of people on this board love BT. However, the general public won't adopt it unless it offers them something...



    Basically, moms everywhere are asking questions about wifi on there own. It is something they need and or desire. Out of the blue, joe-six-pack will ask me about how to browse the web on his laptop. This never happens with bluetooth. People aren't popping out of the woodwork looking for new ways of auto-syncing their contact lists.



    Wireless gadgets will eventually be popular... but they won't be based upon bluetooth and won't be for syncing your pocket gadget with the computer sitting on the desk in front of you.



    I predict either low-power wifi or mobile phone protocols will prevail.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    I think BT will go bye-bye pretty soon... many manufacturers missed the boat on it and decided to half-hartedly support it; also, BT came around a time when most everyone was impressed with WiFi - it never received the attention it should have.



    too bad.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    My Bluetooth toaster just sent a message to my Bluetooth fridge to put a note on it's LCD to order more bread. But it's a liar. It was bagels I toasted. BAGELS! Mwuhahahaha!
  • Reply 16 of 16
    teufelteufel Posts: 24member
    Bluetooth can be a bit complicated to set up, but i had it to work flawlessly on a pair of Sony-Ericsson, including the 900, and it is working reasonably well with an i-mate i had to buy when somone pinched my 900 last month.

    I am waiting for the release of new phones later this year, to go back to the Symbian platform, as the way Pocket PC works is not really winning me over. Incidentally, end of year phones will include Bluetooth version 2, which should significantly decrease battery drain.

    Although i like being able to sync without bringing cables, and/or a bulky dock, the real value of bluetooth is in a car. I got it installed in my car, it cost less than 200 $, and now, when i get in it, the car recognises the bluetooth phone (it has to be paired once), and when i get a call, or want to make one, the radio dies out, and i can hear the caller through the speakers, and talk through a mike. This is really a very secure and efficient hands free system, and i would recommed it to anyone that does not want to spend loads in car repairs, but needs to be able to get his phone calls when he drives. By the way, the system is sold by a firm called Parrot.
Sign In or Register to comment.