Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Bluetooth needs to get its act together
Posted by Jason Dunn in "THOUGHT" @ 10:34 AM
Ok, it's time for me to roll up my sleeves and rant a little. Ed sure stirred up some controversy with his post yesterday, and numerically speaking it seems that most people seem to think that Bluetooth is a great technology. But what about the implementation? Vote in the poll and tell me what you think.
The common thread I see with the people who think Bluetooth rocks is the focus on the implementation rather than the standard. To a certain extent, that's true - if there's a company out there that's doing a really poor job of writing their drivers and software, that company is to blame, and not the standard. But those of you taking this stance are ignoring the most important factor here: consumers don't care about pointing fingers, they just want something that works. If I buy a car, drive it off the lot, and promptly have two of the four tires explode on me, I don't want to hear an explanation from the techs that says "Well, two of your four tires were built on the Tire 1.0 protocol, and the other two are built on the 1.2 spec. You need to go buy compatible tires." Why did they sell me incompatible tires to begin with? How can a company make tires on the 1.0 protocol and still call them tires?
See, that's what standards do folks. They make complicated things easier by making sure everyone agrees on how things are built and operate with each other (yes, I know that's a simplistic definition). The problem, and the frustration Ed and I both have with Bluetooth, is that many companies making Bluetooth products don't adhere to the standards, and thus produce crappy devices that don't work. I'll grant you the point that if everyone adhered to proper Bluetooth standards it would all work together nicely - but that has no bearing on this problem. People want things that work. The Bluetooth SIG has had years to work this out, and if device to device communication was important to them, they'd be strict about testing every Bluetooth device and withholding approval of the device if it didn't work. The fact that every device has profiles, and some lack profiles they "should" have only further complicates things. It's like Windows XP supporting HTTP but not FTP.
I know that Bluetooth works for some of you, but like Ed, nearly every experience I've had with Bluetooth has been frustrating. Socket Communications gave me a Bluetooth card, so I'll give it another try, but my experience with the Anycom card was anything but pleasant. I long for Bluetooth nirvana, but I'm still searching for it. How about you?
The common thread I see with the people who think Bluetooth rocks is the focus on the implementation rather than the standard. To a certain extent, that's true - if there's a company out there that's doing a really poor job of writing their drivers and software, that company is to blame, and not the standard. But those of you taking this stance are ignoring the most important factor here: consumers don't care about pointing fingers, they just want something that works. If I buy a car, drive it off the lot, and promptly have two of the four tires explode on me, I don't want to hear an explanation from the techs that says "Well, two of your four tires were built on the Tire 1.0 protocol, and the other two are built on the 1.2 spec. You need to go buy compatible tires." Why did they sell me incompatible tires to begin with? How can a company make tires on the 1.0 protocol and still call them tires?
See, that's what standards do folks. They make complicated things easier by making sure everyone agrees on how things are built and operate with each other (yes, I know that's a simplistic definition). The problem, and the frustration Ed and I both have with Bluetooth, is that many companies making Bluetooth products don't adhere to the standards, and thus produce crappy devices that don't work. I'll grant you the point that if everyone adhered to proper Bluetooth standards it would all work together nicely - but that has no bearing on this problem. People want things that work. The Bluetooth SIG has had years to work this out, and if device to device communication was important to them, they'd be strict about testing every Bluetooth device and withholding approval of the device if it didn't work. The fact that every device has profiles, and some lack profiles they "should" have only further complicates things. It's like Windows XP supporting HTTP but not FTP.
I know that Bluetooth works for some of you, but like Ed, nearly every experience I've had with Bluetooth has been frustrating. Socket Communications gave me a Bluetooth card, so I'll give it another try, but my experience with the Anycom card was anything but pleasant. I long for Bluetooth nirvana, but I'm still searching for it. How about you?
