Wireless USB killed the Bluetooth star

Or will, starting within the next 12 months. The wireless USB protocol will be finished by the end of March, and products for the retail sector will start rolling out within a year's time. Designed to operate at a range of 10 meters or less, data transfer speeds will top off at 480 Mbps. At Intel's Developer Forum this week, senior fellow Kevin Kahn demonstrated a USB dongle that fits a standard USB 2.0 port and would allow any device with a USB port to send its signals wirelessly. The key advantage of this technology over Bluetooth is ease of use - so many users have been burned by compatibility and setup issues when trying to get Bluetooth devices to talk to each other. For the average consumer, if it isn't dead easy to set up, it just ain't gonna fly. With over 200 companies already slated to release wireless USB devices in the coming year, it won't be long before Bluetooth could very well find itself grounded.

[Michael @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

The fact is that in Europe it is the protocol of choice from what I understand. Sure it may be killed off in America but I doubt it will be killed off in Europe. Anyways, wireless USB you need a USB port, now if you need a USB port that increases size because you have to add the USB device, I see an issue there

[Graham @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Just yesterday I said " I need to invent a wireless usb cable" and Poof!!! here it is.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

What's the problem with Bluetooth? With my headset, I just pair it with my phone and it works fine. I've set up Powerbooks with wireless printers and they just work. Is it perhaps that the PC drivers suck? My only two complaints on Bluetooth are the lack of speed and range. I should be able to keep my phone in my left pocket and my headset on my right ear but that's not really the case.

I expect wireless USB to take off with printers, cameras and things like that but unless it has lower power consumption than BT, it doesn't seem as though it would take the place of BT on phones.

[holophile @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

The question is, what is it's power efficiency?
Obviously, it has a higher bandwidth throughput, but that almost always comes at a higher energy expense.
I don't know if it will kill off bluetooth. It'll probably just segment the marketplace. Right now, bluetooth is the "magic hammer" that people want to use for everything wireless, but it's just not practical in all cases.
This would be good for wirelessly syncing my iPod and camera. But I'm sure we'll still be using bluetooth for our wireless headsets.

[Alex S @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Never had a problem here Mac OSX (10.2 - 10.3.8). I sync my phone, use wireless keyboard/mouse going on 2 years. Didn't even have to install drivers. How much easier does it have to get?

[jon @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

i agree with the others, the only bt trouble i've ever had was pairing a ipaq and a v600 for gprs. the v600 has some driver flaws for ipaqs, i can obex, i can't dial up.

BT worked flawlessly on my t610/2215.

[hamish @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

It'll be interesting to see how long this takes to actually come to market - I understand Wireless FireWire was completed many months ago, and approved, but still no products.

Roll on the Wireless iPod.

[Gordy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I'd imagine that this is probably why Apple is phasing out FireWire support on the iPod. If wireless USB is on the horizon, this opens up tremendous opportunities for the iPod.

Oh, and BT sucks. Just ther thought of having every USB device I currently own suddenly being wireless [wait, that's not possible for every device] just rocks. Bluetooth, I never knew ye.

[TheZodiac @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I think this is a product of Intel. Figures. At best I think this will be a good product in PCs, but is there really a need? Perihperals maybe, but who the hell needs another wireless short range standard? I hope this dosnt get to be like all the friggin flash memory formats that are confusing the shit out of every damn one. Thank you.

[MathieuMa @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I find it pretty amusing that the only peoples having no issue with bluetooth are Mac users ...
Were are you PC gents, anyone have it working fine ?

[Frank @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I guess don't understand how this will be any easier/more compatible than Bluetooth. It's not like it's already built into devices -- it's a whole new protocol. Just because it's based on USB doesn't mean anything. Just like Bluetooth, it will still require either a dongle or an integrated BT module. Seems to me that the initial bugs with BT are finally getting worked out and companies are really supporting it. How is yet *another* standard going to make my life easier?

As much as I hate to see yet another wireless standard, I think #4 has the right idea. No single solution will ever be the best for every situation.

The real question is, what color will the LED's be? Green, yellow, and red have obvious existing associations and blue is taken. Pink or purple maybe?

[d-roC @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

To the user above who commented about where are the PC users:
The problem isnt so much with BT, it is with teh fact that it is a moldable standard, meaning manufacturers have a choice of which parts to support necessitating the need for drivers which may or may not be cross company compatible. Where that hurts is the end user who doesnt care about drivers and standards and wants to just connect. The PC user doesnt get that one stop shop because the PC in and of itself is a walking chop shop.

My guess is that wireless USB will only have an advantage over BT if there is none of those same usability issues. People could care less about speed if something just works. If something has to be configured and checked, then it is no longer a wireless convience but a wireless nag (NOTE: wirelss USB is supposed to dupe regular USB in that it will just work but manufacturers will be able to 'tune' their offerings just like with current USB items)

~Peace and blessings to all
~d-roC from BargainPDA

[Carmi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I believe this issue must be considered in the larger context of rapidly-evolving short-range wireless standards. Let's look at a few of the key talking points that should be brought forward at this time:

Wireless USB (also known as Ultra-Wideband, or UWB) is itself subject to a standards deadlock between Intel and Motorola.

Bluetooth 2.0 is rolling out as we speak. Although it recently lost Ericsson as a participant, it is not subject to a multivendor standards war. The interoperability issues that plagued the1.X spec are supposed to have been worked out in 2.0. Let's reserve judgement on that until we see working product.

ZigBee holds the hope of a simpler-to-implement WPAN standard. Problem is, no one's signed on yet.

And, finally, 802.11n, the 100 Mbps followon to the a,b, and g standards could swallow the entire WPAN space in one fell swoop if the standard is ratified quickly enough to head off the other standards and beat them to market.

I'm not dismissing the intent of the original post. Far from it. I'm simply trying to broaden the issue out to a market-focused discussion, as opposed to a product- or dual-standard-oriented one.

Carmi
http://writteninc.blogspot.com

[Steven Fisher @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Well, I bought a BlueTooth dongle for my PC. Thanks to Microsoft's preference for signed drivers, installing the drivers was all but impossible. In fact, I eventually just gave up.

My Mac, of course, had built-in BlueTooth and never needed drivers.

Anyway, I'm amused to read that BlueTooth is dying. It can join the ranks of the doomed iMac, the dying BSD, and the useless iPod.

[ijw @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

WUSB will absolutely not displace Bluetooth headsets in the forseeable future. The Bluetooth protocol, unlike WUSB, provides a special audio-specific mode that decreases the protocol overhead significantly. This allows Bluetooth devices to use significantly less power when transceiving voice data.

With all the overhead of the USB protocol shoved into WUSB, expect your handset and headset to lose charge twice as fast.

[Ryan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Add me to the ranks of Mac users using Bluetooth with no problems. I'm typing this post via Bluetooth. Lets see what I've set up with absolutely no hassle...

Bluetooth link to phone (Salling Clicker!!)
Bluetooth link to headset
Bluetooth link to keyboard

When I drop my iPod in it's dock iSync automatically fires up and while it's talking to my iPod it makes sure my phone is charged up too. I don't see a wireless iPod as practical as you'd still have to charge it and 1 cable charges/syncs it. I *LOVE* it for my phone, however, since I can just charge my phone every night like always but it can sync or talk to my computer without having to be linked by a wire.

[Monmin @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

#1, you don't need a usb port for wusb. They just demonstrated a dongle that converts a usb port to wireless, This is how you could easily add wusb to your pc (exactly the same way you could add BT to your pc as well). Future devices that support wusb of course would not need a physical usb port.

#13, I really doubt that there is much relationship between usb and wusb. I think it is more of a marketing ploy calling it 'wireless usb'. 802.11 really has not that much in common with ethernet at all. I think the frame format is the same but thats it.

Intel pulled the same marketing coup with PCI express. Arapahoe was designed from scratch without much resemblance to PCI (for the most part, they do have some compatibility built in) The PCI SIG made the decision to deem arapohoe the next evolution of PCI. AMD's hyper transport could have been 'PCI express' just as well.

DISCLAIMER - I apologize if anything I said is actually true :)

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I doubt bluetooth will just suddenly disapear (like the connections between ALL these wireless standards seem to every time I try to use them...repeatedly).
As ijw pointed out BT as a number of specific advantages for specific tasks, USB has been and probably always be more general purpose, which is why we all loved it.

I've never used a BT headset (perhaps someone can correct me if my next assertion is wrong), but somehow I doubt you have to install drivers on your phone...doesn't it just have to be able to "see" the headset ? So for applications where all the hardware is integrated out of the box I don't see any usability issues.

In any case, I don't know of many standards as well entrench as BT is now that just vanish. Most PC's on the shelf today still have at least one serial port (RS232) and one parallel port, many have a Game/Midi port. Many PC's still have PS/2 ports, though I've notice laptops increasingly do not...but they have their own special anachronism with IRDa.

ALL these standards have theoretically been succeeded by USB 1.0,1.1,2.0 and/or Firewire.
But you still find most of this stuff on new machines, and you still see new devices that use them (actually I haven't seen a gameport Joystick/pad in a while, but I'm guessing they're still out there).

Come to think of it, ISA (and VLB if you want to acknowledge it's temporary existance) is probably the one architecture I can think of that actually has, in MY computing lifetime, eventually disapeared, but it was still around for quite a while after PCI became popular.

Oh yeah, 9 pin DIN for keyboards is quite dead as well...

The advertised speed of wireless USB is compelling, but do you really need 480mbps to communicate between your headset and phone ?

Basically I think this new stardard will just replace the stuff that BT never did very well, and BT will continue to be improved and used in the things it DOES do well.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it
+
If it is broke, fix it or replace it
=
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Nate @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Microsoft messed up their Bluetooth support so badly that they killed it. Even their USB support is weak (ever had to re-install a driver just because you plugged a device into a different USB port?). But at least it's better than their Bluetooth.

Bluetooth works great, great, great on the Mac by the way. But I expect Apple will switch to wireless USB just as they've moved away from emphasizing the superior Firewire in favor of USB 2.0.

[Buzzcut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Bluetooth should be renamed Blowtooth. 'Cause it blows.

Ok, I admit upfront that it totally could be Microsoft's fault. But I NEVER got my iPaq 5450 to sync with bluetooth on my desktop.

I have a bluetooth headset for my bluetooth enabled Sony phone. When I send the phonenumber from the 5450 to the phone, it knocks the headset off!

What I really hate about bluetooth, besides that XP doesn't support it natively, is that there IS standards variation. Thus, the new HP bluetooth headphones don't work with my 2003 vintage 5450.

I finally gave up on the 5450 (wifi was even more half assed than bluetooth on the thing!). I'm getting a Palm. But even Palm doesn't support every bluetooth feature. I know that you can't use a bluetooth headset with the bluetooth card on the Tungsten W, for example. WTF?

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Let's explain what this really is. WUSB is a high speed, low power PAN. 480Mbps at 2-3 meters, 110Mbps at 10 meters, bluetooth can't hold a candle to that. Can you imagine unloading your portable device that has a mess of pictures or songs via bluetooth? Say 20MB? This technology is meant to be integrated into portable devices to tranfer lots of data (re: songs, pictures, digital video) to another device in the same room. Bluetooth can't cut the bandwidth, 802.11 would drain your battery. It will use standard WUSB protocal's, so will be recognizable and attach just like your current USB devices, you know, "your camera has just connected, would you like to download your pictures?". you will see demos from all the major consumer electronic and phone guys by CES next year. it won't replace bluetooth, which is great and cheap for a headset, but will certainly replace USB cables in both PC and consumer gear.

[BlackFire @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

So, anyone heard rumors about a UWB device that will provide the ability to plug in optical digital audio out from the PC, run it over wireless to another box next to my receiver and have optical digital out into the receiver?

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

"but will certainly replace USB cables in both PC and consumer gear."

By this I assume "Mike"/#20 means it will replace SOME/MANY USB cables and not all of them.

Because, the unfinshed work of Nikola Tesla not withstanding, I think physical cable is still the prefered medium for transfering POWER.
So if you take away the USB cable on some devices, you will have to add a power cable.
Which defeats some of the point in it being 'wireless' (not in all case of course...but some).

[jeffharris @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Who said Apple was phasing out FireWire support for iPods?

They decided that the majority of users have USB ports on their computers, the majority of iPods being sold to Windows users. So, why ship a FireWire cable that may never be used? Apple saves a few cents per iPod by not including a FireWire cable and profits jump up a notch further. Shareholders and Wall Street are happy.

As a Mac user, it's certainly worth buying a FireWire cable for my iPod or just getting an adaptor that lets me use ANY FireWire cable to sync and charge my iPod.

Oh yeah, Bluetooth.
It really does boil down to power consumption and the size of wireless USB vs. Bluetooth internal components. If there are multiple advantages to USB over Bluetooth, good. Why does one have to"win" over the other?

[Sean @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Add me to the ranks of... er... Linux users who've never had trouble with Bluetooth. My first experience with Bluetooth was when I recently bought a new laptop and cellphone at the same time. Both came with Bluetooth, and I bought a Bluetooth headset to boot. Linux recognized the Bluetooth chip in the laptop no problem, and I was able to easily pair the laptop with the cellphone and upload my addressbook. Pairing the headset to the phone was even easier; I haven't tried pairing the headset with the laptop, but... why? Anyway, the quality of the link is generally reasonable, although I'd say that the "10 meter" range is optimistic at best. And the batteries never run out on the headset, which surprises me.

Maybe it is just a Windows thing; maybe Bill has something against Bluetooth. But Mac users don't seem to have problems with Bluetooth, and I haven't had any with Linux on the x86_64 architecture.

[Roger Perdacta @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Living in the Mac world I had found Bluetooth to just work.

Raving about it made my Brother ask me to pair his phone to his PC. It took 3 months of firmware and driver updates before his PC and phone talked nicely. It still crashes occasionally. Seems to be a regulary story after I hunted around on the 'Net for support.

If wireless USB just works for Windows then bring it on.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I find this all amusing and interesting as I found this page looking for a wireless of blue tooth option. Being on the road with a pda (zire 71) can be a pain. You really have to take your computer also. If I could use a IPOD as a mass storage and stream files back and forth between my pda that would eliminate the laptop. So I potenially love the idea. I haven't found a bluetooth hard drive for sale Toshiba made one a few years back but it is only around in pictures and text. Think how great that could be PDA-Ipod, stream what ever you want(music/video from your protable hardrive(IPOD) while you do your work on the PDA and it all fits in your pocket??????? I just wish these fools would get it together and put it on the market
jeff

[Robert O. Davis @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I have swapped out the internal DVD/CD drive on my laptop for an extra battery. I have an external DVD/CD drive, a 500G external hard drive, a cable TV tuner, A high end 8 color printer and a flatbed scanner all connected with USB cables. It would be great if a few wireless USB dongles would allow me to leave my desk and work from the sofa in my office or my bed in the next room or the loung chair on my deck.

[Woman shoes @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I doubt bluetooth will just suddenly disapear (like the connections between ALL these wireless standards seem to every time I try to use them...repeatedly).
As ijw pointed out BT as a number of specific advantages for specific tasks, USB has been and probably always be more general purpose, which is why we all loved it.

[Pats @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

Bluetooth is going to stay - unless someone comes up with a radical way of storing power for extended durations in a small package.
Regardless of the quality or quantity of data being transferred - Bluetooth is a lower-power, less-complex, short-range wireless protocol. Read that again - Low-Power, Low-complex and a short-range wireless protocol. Trying to adapt Bluetooth to cater to bandwidth-hungry applications are bound to fail and trying to adapt power-hungry protocols like 802.11a/g for applications like Head-set or your mobile phone will meet with similar results.

While WUSB and variants of 802.11x might gain prominence, it is likely to be in areas where the devices are connected to a power source and are more complicated than a head-set or a telephone.

A definitive industry-wide wireless standard is a sheer impossibility, primarily because of the specific needs of each domain that the wireless technology caters to. Horses for Courses (a lousy analogy but hey .. the best I could think about) is the way to go about!

[Tarun @ Dec 19th 2005 1:22AM]

I do understand how UWB could replace bluetooth in computers and laptops but what about the bluetooths components in consumer electronics. Can the choose to use W USB in all components like camcorders, automotive components, phones, washing machines etc(toshiba launched one some time back)

Can W USB replace blue tooth here as well ???