Is Bluetooth on Its Way Out?
by John Paczkowski
Posted on October 14, 2009 at 9:42 AM PT
The inexorable march of technology made wires and cable obsolete in the wake of Bluetooth and may soon do the same to the short-range wireless protocol. The Wi-Fi Alliance this week announced Wi-Fi Direct, a new short-range wireless standard capable of performing many of the same tasks as Blutooth, but at Wi-Fi speeds.
Essentially, Wi-Fi Direct turns supporting devices into access points, allowing them to connect to one another without joining a traditional network. They’ll support typical Wi-Fi ranges and the same data-transfer rates, which in the case of 802.11n is some 30 times faster than the three megabits per second for Bluetooth.
“Wi-Fi Direct represents a leap forward for our industry. Wi-Fi users worldwide will benefit from a single-technology solution to transfer content and share applications quickly and easily among devices, even when a Wi-Fi access point isn’t available,” Wi-Fi Alliance Executive Director Edgar Figueroa said in a statement. “The impact is that Wi-Fi will become even more pervasive and useful for consumers and across the enterprise.”
And Bluetooth inevitably less so. Especially since Wi-Fi Direct will be available as a software upgrade for existing Wi-Fi devices. Why wait around for high-speed Bluetooth, which itself will rely on Wi-Fi for high speed data transfers, when you can use Wi-Fi Direct for your personal area network?
Comments
Maybe. But this is vaporware: “The Wi-Fi Alliance plans to publish its peer-to-peer specification upon completion.”
Most present uses of Bluetooth don’t need more bandwidth. And more bandwidth and range demand more power. Don’t expect a phone headset using Wi-Fi Direct to be nice and discreet, because it will need a big honkin’ battery to drive it.
Antennas may have to be bigger too. Try grafting a WiFi router’s external antenna to your headset, and see how cool you look now…
Who uses Bluetooth to “transfer content and share applications”? It’s used mainly for streaming. Stereo audio, mouse motion, printer data, GPS fixes: all are bandwidth limited at the source or destination, not in the link.
Bluetooth 2.0 is fine for all of the above. At least Bluetooth 3.0 incorporates 2.0. “Wi-Fi Direct” shows no indication of having a low-power fallback.
Posted by David Gorgen at October 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pmI can only imagine the panic on the face of the IT person I ask to purchase me a Wifi (Direct or otherwise) mouse for my Mac Pro.
They are panic-stricken every time the acronym Wifi is even mentioned, because of a lack of security with early Wifi networks. Not surprising for a company that considers XP Pro a new OS.
Posted by Eric Welch at October 15th, 2009 at 8:09 amThe reason I think Bluetooth is not threatened by Wi-Fi and vice versa is that they are on the same chip now. So going to Wi-Fi only doesn’t necessarily get you much benefit at the cost of never being able to connect to a Bluetooth accessory again, and they are very common, and very cheap. Your wireless chip would shrink a little, but you can shrink it with a smaller process while keeping Bluetooth compatibility.
The latest thing in wireless chips is adding other stuff like FM, not taking away previous standards. Wi-Fi “a” is still in there today, even though there were only like 5 “a” devices ever made, and all in 1999 as far as I remember.
Also, the short-range nature of Bluetooth is much better suited to keyboards and similar accessories which you don’t want to broadcast to the whole neighborhood (even though it’s encrypted) because that just invites cracking and key-logging. Same with microphones and headphones. The fact that you are wireless but your signal is basically confined to the room you’re in is a significant feature of Bluetooth.
Posted by Fred Hamranhansenhansen at October 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm