Bluetooth cometh
Published: 26 Jun 2002 17:22 BST
There's been much debate over which wireless local area networking technology is better -- Bluetooth or wireless Ethernet (aka Wi-Fi or 802.11). This is like asking whether a Corvette is better than a dirt bike. Sure, the Corvette is faster and more powerful, but it drinks about 100 times the fuel and it's not ideal for a spin through the woods. Both have their rightful place in the world, and there's a promised land for Bluetooth that will eventually make all of our lives much easier.
PDA hardware manufacturers that have investigated supporting both standards tell me that while 802.11b (11Mbps Wi-Fi) is the preferable wireless LAN technology in most scenarios, they have to be mindful of its greater thirst for battery power and higher component cost compared to Bluetooth.
For these reasons (especially the battery life issue), Bluetooth can be a better wireless LAN choice for handhelds. I run my iPaq with a compact flash 802.11b adapter from Symbol Technologies, and it works really well. But, I haven't done a battery performance comparison versus Bluetooth. Speed is an issue, though: at 720kbps, Bluetooth is a pig when compared to wireless Ethernet. Both have new, faster versions coming out, but the speed differential will be even more pronounced in wireless Ethernet's favour.
So, when does Bluetooth make sense? Its biggest potential use is cable replacement. Most people have managed wireless cable replacement using infrared ports. For example, I have synchronised my Compaq iPaq with my IBM ThinkPad via infrared many times. If you try this, be careful not to put a cup of coffee between the two devices or the connection will be lost. Since Bluetooth is radio-based, the physical barrier problem goes away.
No more proprietary adapters
Bluetooth should also eliminate the proprietary adapters found at the ends of the many cables used to attach devices to one another. The external floppy for my ThinkPad, my mobile phone, video camera and the cradles for my iPaq, Palm device and BlackBerry all have one of these adapters. Over the years, I've amassed an amazing collection of the special cables needed to connect my various devices to a PC (but never to each other). I'm proud to say that I've reached a point where I have no idea what certain cables do anymore. (I wonder why vendors never label their cables. Maybe because doing so is common sense.)
Eliminating cables in ways that permit inter-device communication (and not just communication with a PC) will open up some interesting possibilities. For example, ZDNet reader Bill Noah, Group Systems Director at Taylor Nelson Sofres, takes advantage of his mobile phone's Internet connectivity by using it as wireless modem for his iPaq. He uses Bluetooth to connect his iPaq 3870 to an Ericsson T68 mobile phone. The phone, in turn, connects to the Internet via GPRS. "GPRS is on-line 24/7 and can receive calls at the same time," Bill writes. "Now GPRS roams in Europe. Everybody is happy because they can carry the PDA only when they need it but have the phone with them all the time."
Now consider my situation. I have four separate wireless accounts: one for my phone, one for my iPaq (using Earthlink), one for my BlackBerry and one for my wireless Palm. Four wireless accounts may be unusual for most people, but two such accounts isn't much of a stretch. I know a lot of people who carry both mobile phones and BlackBerries. Imagine if all your devices connected through one wireless device (and one wireless service) and did so without the mess of cables. My estimated savings alone would be $120 per month (plus fewer bills to worry about).
Not only would all your devices (including your PC) be able to share one wireless connection, but, provided the right software is on your devices, Bluetooth puts all the connectivity in place to transfer data from one device to another. For example, I could easily keep the phone numbers in my mobile phone and my iPaq in synch. Better yet, I could look up a contact in my iPaq and have it instruct my mobile phone (or even the cordless phone in my house) to place the call to that contact.
Wireless Ethernet is not worth it
In situations like these, the performance or other benefits of wireless Ethernet aren't worth my while. What I need is the functionality and the ability to consolidate my wireless services into one and to share data and instructions where necessary. Of course, security is an issue. I certainly don't want other people hacking into my wireless connection or accessing my data with their Bluetooth devices. As long as your devices are programmable, and most Bluetooth-enabled devices are, we'll see everything from firewalls to encryption utilities showing up for cell phones and other devices.
If you buy into this dream, then you should be making sure that everything you buy from this point forward has Bluetooth built-in, especially PDAs and mobile phones. By the way, it's now in vogue to refer to programmable mobile phones as "wireless terminals" or "wireless handsets" instead of "mobile phones."
For the sake of programmability, make sure all your future wireless terminals have a Java Virtual Machine and are compatible with Java's Mobile Information Device Profile (MIDP). Java is quickly turning out to be the de facto standard for wireless handset programmability. Next week, at PC Expo, I will be meeting with several vendors who have promised to show me their killer apps for my Java-enabled Motorola i85s wireless handset. I can't wait.
Did you find this article useful?
8 out of 17 people found this useful
Digg
Slashdot
Del.ici.ous
Stumble
Reddit
