MobileInfocenter

Bluetooth Adoption Moving Towards Mainstream

Although Bluetooth-enabled devices havenít quite entered the true mainstream yet, they are poised to take that next step according to new market research.

With Mobile phones, PDAs, and headsets making significant strides over the last year, the automotive market beginning to make an impact, and PMG (Personal Mobile Gateway) products expected to emerge, shipments of Bluetooth-enabled manufactured equipment will experience a 60% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) between 2003 and 2008.

ďMost of the end-use markets for this technology seem to be making significant headway,Ē says Joyce Putscher, Director of the high-tech market research firmís Converging Markets and Technologies Group. HandsFree regulations and auto manufacturers are helping to drive the movement toward the safety and convenience of cordless headsets, and consumers will be able to use them with a multitude of products, from mobile phones to telematics systems, digital audio players and game devices, PCs, office phones, and emerging stereo systems and wireless speakers. In addition, Putscher believes that ďSince CDMA is a large factor in the US, getting embedded Bluetooth-enabled mobile phones into that market is integral for Bluetooth growth in the US.Ē Bluetooth-enabled CDMA phones are beginning to emerge onto the market, with Sprint PCS carrying a Sony Ericsson CDMA/AMPS Bluetooth-enabled phone.

The automotive market is also beginning to make an impact on Bluetooth demand, from a technology awareness aspect, in addition to the functionality benefits of HandsFree operation. The automotive market will provide a driver for many handsets, headsets, embedded auto solutions, and aftermarket car kits. In addition, demand for PMG products, and their associated capabilities and services, will provide another driver for Bluetooth-enabled products. A number of wireless operators see PMGs as an opportunity to increase their Average Revenue Per Unit (ARPU) and to offer service differentiation. However, the successful emergence of PMGs will depend on the willingness of operators to embrace this new breed of devices. PMG handsets and companion devices, such as cameras and messaging devices, will jump start deployments.

The In-Stat/MDR report has also found that:

  • Products that are compliant with the Bluetooth 1.2 version that includes the Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) profile will emerge this year. Not only for notebooks, this coexistence profile is desirable for headsets, and other applications as well.
  • In 2008, manufactured Bluetooth-enabled equipment will still be led by mobile phones.
  • The Bluetooth semiconductor market made concrete progress last year, with final 2003 worldwide chipset shipments just about doubling, from those in 2002, to 69 million units.
  • Unlike Ultra-Wideband or 802.15.4, Bluetooth supports voice. That is one of the reasons In-Stat/MDR does not consider these technologies as major competition for Bluetooth in the near future.

Article Comments

 (32 comments)

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.

Comments Closed Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.

Down

Bluetooth -> health friendly?

Konstantin @ 5/5/2004 3:35:10 PM #
With so much babling about cellphones this and cellphones that like (human)cell level damage, bad for the prostate, degrades blood cells...... and so on, is there any talk about Bluetooth's enviromental friendliness?
Will bluetooth headset save me from the cellphone antennae or not?

RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
dona83 @ 5/5/2004 4:08:13 PM #
From what I understand... bluetooth uses approximately 40mA of current. cell phones use around 300mA. Since Bluetooth uses 7.5x less power, I would say it's at least 2x safer than cell phones. Mind you a corded headset will offer maximum protection, unless u put ur cell phone in ur pants in which case u'll get weird babies, but there's the convinience factor with bluetooth.

RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
Strider_mt2k @ 5/5/2004 5:32:55 PM #
The amount of current consumed by these devices has zero bearing on health impact.

What's at issue is the amount and frequency of RF radiation exposure.

While a more powerful RF device would consume more power than a less powerful one, current draw alone is not an indication of radiated RF energy.



RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
phoneboy @ 5/5/2004 7:37:23 PM #
Actually, it has been argued that the use of some phones with a wired headset sends as much RF radiation into your head as using the phone against your ear, because the wire conducts some of the RF energy from the phone to your head.

It there is any truth to that, the extreme low power of a BT headset might be the best way to go if you're concerned with RF exposure.

RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
Midknyte @ 5/6/2004 12:52:49 PM #
OMG! We're all gonna die!!!

RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
Winter_ @ 5/6/2004 1:57:04 PM #
I've seen anecoic chamber tests done to GSM phones (a model from Ericsson and another from Nokia) with and without wired hands-free sets.
The results were that
1) naturally, you receive much less radiated energy from the phone when it's about 1 meter away from you (about 10 times less than when it's next to your ear)
2) a wired headset filling the 1 meter gap between the phone and you DOES guide some energy towards you, but the result still was about 5 times less than having the phone next to your ear.

Those numbers are approximated; that was some time ago (2 years?), I can't remember them exactly.

I seem to recall that they also made some tests with those little thingies that are sold as "radiation protectors" to be sticked to the antenna or the earpiece. Those can be dangerous! An unmodified phone will do its best to use the least power needed to reach a base station - after all, the battery life is to be maximized!. Those stickies can range from transparent to the waves (so they are useless) to interfering with the waves (so they cause the phone to use more power than necessary, so you end up with more radiation and battery life goes down).

Bluetooth however, as already pointed out here, radiates much less power, so health risks should be still less than those from GSM phones.

Lastly, note that there is no evidence (that I know of) that the frequencies used by GSM nor Bluetooth are dangerous or even noticeable to living tissues, since they are not ionizing radiations (X-rays are).

RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
Puppy @ 5/6/2004 7:23:31 PM #
Studies have already proven that analog cell phones cause cancer. Everything's been inconclusive so far with digital phones (because they typically emit less radiation)...but they're still probably causing SOME damage.

And I would prefer not to use wireless networking for the same reason. (Of course I have no need for it, so it's easy for me to want it left off my PDAs for health and cost reasons).

danger? It's not power, it's frequency
Winter_ @ 5/7/2004 4:38:31 AM #
I am not informed about "analog phones", but are you sure about that? I find that REALLY surprising, and have heard nothing about it.

GSM phones' radiations are (supposedly) not dangerous not because of the power, but because they are non-ionizing radiations (i.e., relatively low frequencies). So there should be no risk of cancer. At most, it could cause heating, like a microwave oven (which use a similar range of frequencies). That's why there has been some speculation about the waves heating the nearest tissues to the phone... brain included. (and I've seen that rebated; I SEEM to recall that SOME heating was found, but just a tiny fraction of Kelvin degree; too small to be of any concern). Remember that microwave ovens use powers that are various orders of magnitude greater than phones; and are specifically designed to concentrate that power into the oven to be able to heat things. Phones not only radiate much less, but do it with an entirely different purpose: spread the radiation as far as possible, so the effects get really diluted.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure about the "benefits" of LIVING near the antenna of a base station... though supposedly that is still without risk.

Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor!

RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
Danscott @ 5/9/2004 3:07:34 AM #
Winter,

Radiation does not have to be ionizing to hurt you. Microwave ovens do not use ionizing radiation (they simply cause the Hydrogen atoms to vibrate in a water molecule) But would you want to sit in a microwave oven for an hour? Infra red can burn you, think heat lamp.

What causes the damage is when the wavelength of radiation excites an electron in a matching orbital. This can then cause a photon of a different wavelength to be discharged or an electron to jump up one level. This is where problems start because covalent bonds can start breaking. (Of course the photon which was emitted in the first example might cause a bond to break too)

Interestingly, just like clear glass allows visible light to pass through, Carbon is invisible to X-ray, and the big bad Ionizing power of the X-ray passes right through. But curtain wavelengths of Microwave radiation can excite carbon bonds and break them!

By the way, everyone should know, the younger a person is (newborn till about 16years) the more harm radiation exposure is to them. Because they have fewer cells which are dividing at a faster rate, and thus more susceptible to cellular damage when the cell divides. It amazes me that people put cell phone next to babies head so that grandma can say hi and here a baby say goo-goo. (I will not even let people use a cell phone next to my child.)

But what do I know Iím just a cancer researcher.

PS Just got a T3 and I really like it.

RE: Blood-soaked plutonium Bluetooth -> health friendly?
;-(( @ 5/9/2004 3:58:50 AM #
It amazes me that people put cell phone next to babies head so that grandma can say hi and here a baby say goo-goo. (I will not even let people use a cell phone next to my child.)

So, Mr. "Cancer Researcher": please enlighten us regarding which studies show adverse outcomes associated with brief exposure to a SAR level of 1.6 W/kg. (Grandma is waiting to say hi and here (sic) a baby say goo-goo...) No, you can't include case reports from your Old England Journal of Overwrought Histrionics.

But what do I know Iím just a cancer researcher.

If you're a FUNDED "Cancer Researcher", perhaps it's time for your supervisor to conduct a thorough review of your "research". Do you have a year's supply of canned peas in your bomb shelter in Montana? Don't forget to put a can opener down there, Researcher-Boy.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!



Freedom of speech, baby. Gotta love it,

RE: Bluetooth -> health friendly?
;-(( @ 5/9/2004 4:23:33 AM #
Disclaimer: I am a doctor.



;-)

Freedom of speech, baby. Gotta love it,

ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiations
Winter_ @ 5/9/2004 7:19:18 AM #

Radiation does not have to be ionizing to hurt you. Microwave ovens do not use ionizing radiation (they simply cause the Hydrogen atoms to vibrate in a water molecule)

In fact, microwave ovens make WHOLE water molecules (and fats and some others) to vibrate. I didn't know that atoms could vibrate inside the molecule, but hey, perhaps that's even possible. I'm not that proficient in physics.

However, if it was because of "hydrogen atoms vibrating inside of molecules", and considering that hydrogen is quite a widespread element, why there are materials that don't get heated in the microwave oven? Since paper has lots of hydrogen atoms, it should get heated... but it doesn't.

Take a look at
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bfurlong/

But would you want to sit in a microwave oven for an hour?

That's stupid.
Let's make another comparison. Would you keep your cell phone for an hour beside your head? (that's an hour long of pretty close microwave exposition)
Now, would you want to sit in front of a X-ray beam for just a minute? :P

Infra red can burn you, think heat lamp.

Yes, it can BURN me, not cause CANCER, which was the subject. And it would need SOME amount of power to hurt me.

How much power from an X-ray source would I need to get "hurt"? Wouldn't it be enough to get a single DNA molecule modified? (actually DNA can stand and correct some of the damage, but it gets dangerous).

Now, how much power from an infra red source would I need to get hurt? MUCH more, isn't it?... and then, the damage would be localized and easily noticed - and cured. Unless you burn me down, of course. :P

What causes the damage is when the wavelength of radiation excites an electron in a matching orbital. This can then cause a photon of a different wavelength to be discharged or an electron to jump up one level. This is where problems start because covalent bonds can start breaking. (Of course the photon which was emitted in the first example might cause a bond to break too)

I think you're mistaking some things here. Visible light also causes electron jumps INSIDE THE SAME ATOM, and it doesn't cause cancer.
Electron jumps to OUTSIDE the atom are called IONIZATION, and for that you need high energies, which are available only at higher frequencies, like X-rays.

As you surely know, Einstein got a Nobel because he managed to explain that high (ionizing) frequencies, even with little power, can do what low (non-ionizing) frequencies can't - even with huge powers.

And that's why the dangerous radiations are the ionizing ones - not microwaves.
How does all you are saying relate to microwaves?

Take a look at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod4.html
and http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html

Interestingly, just like clear glass allows visible light to pass through, Carbon is invisible to X-ray, and the big bad Ionizing power of the X-ray passes right through.

EVEN if that was a good comparison (and I don't think so), part of the problem is: we're not pure carbon, are we? :P

But curtain wavelengths of Microwave radiation can excite carbon bonds and break them!

I'm certainly no cancer researcher, but I never heard something like that. Ever. Microwaves breaking carbon bonds? What frequencies, and what power levels, and which carbon compounds? (because atoms are not the most important thing here, as you surely know as a cancer researcher)
I hope you are not talking about heating a compound so much that the bonds break... you know, that is really called "burning things". :P

Anyhow, take a look at this...
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation2.htm

By the way, everyone should know, the younger a person is (newborn till about 16years) the more harm radiation exposure is to them. Because they have fewer cells which are dividing at a faster rate, and thus more susceptible to cellular damage when the cell divides.

I guess you're talking about exposure to harming radiation, like X-rays and other ionizing radiations. :P

It amazes me that people put cell phone next to babies head so that grandma can say hi and here a baby say goo-goo. (I will not even let people use a cell phone next to my child.)

Well, for sure you're free to do whatever you deem appropiate to protect your children's health.
But I certainly would say that's a bit exaggerated.
If you do that for things that haven't been found dangerous... what will you do with known dangerous things? Like... UV radiation from the sun? (which, guess what, is a ionizing radiation)

But what do I know I'm just a cancer researcher.

Well, then I guess I should believe you.
But first you'll have to fill the gaps you're leaving here, since I do have a background on radio transmission and related physics which demand just that.

However, I want to try to be balanced: I've just found the site www.rfsafe.com, which defends that (all!?) RF radiation is unsafe. I've read only a bit of it, but it looks more alarmist than scientific. In fact the science pieces I've browsed there seem to fail to really champion the site's purpose...

Anyway, for sure a lot of debate is still going on. So place your bet and live with it.

------------------------------------------------

Hey, you had the bad luck to come here for the first time between two posts by our Favourite Freak Facey F(r)iend. How curious, I almost thought you both could be somehow related (I'm a bit paranoic, you know, since Palm*'s CEO started censoring us - or so Facey says). Well, now you know him - I'm sorry :). Don't take it personally, he's always like that.

:-(LOL)

e_tellurian @ 5/5/2004 3:46:48 PM #
Was there any doubt?

Perhaps life is good when we do what we say we will do with many people seeking win-win choices.

Reminds me of a promise i made to a friend.

Peace,

E-T
Peace pipe contains tobacco (sweet grass) and is shared among adults to celebrate friendships. It was intended to be used at special gatherings not every day. Though if it will bring global peace one may share more often.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before

Louis Berk @ 5/5/2004 4:43:18 PM #
... which is a lot more than I used to hear on all the Bluetooth headsets I owned and disowned in the last 2 years.

When the day comes that I no longer wrinkle my mouth in a smile at dorks wandering around with booms extending down the side of their faces, screaming "can you hear me? this line is crap!", I'll consider Bluetooth has overcome its inherent design weakenesses, user hostile interface and general lack of market interest.

Yawn!

RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
Patrick @ 5/5/2004 5:05:30 PM #
Have to agree 100%.

I like the idea of Bluetooth very much, but the implementation has been anything but friendly. Just look at the size of threads talking about how to configure your Bluetooth connection in this instance or that. Terrible interface, terrible PR, yet all the industry pundits insist year after year that we're just on the verge of Bluetooth Nirvana.

Yawn.


RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
JarJar @ 5/5/2004 7:09:39 PM #
I have to agree. I've heard for the past 4-5 years that *next* year will be the year of bluetooth. I would very much like ubiquitous Bluetooth, but so far the hype outweighs reality.

If you dig back through the archives you can probably find my comments from 3 years ago asking "where's the beef?"

Someone always responds how wrong I am and that Bluetooth is already taking off.

yawn...

Bluetooth ROCKS! It freakin' ROCKS!
;-(( @ 5/5/2004 11:14:43 PM #
You're wrong - Bluetooth is already taking off.


Bluetooth + Ralph Nader in 2004 -> to the White House we go.

Freedom of speech, baby. Gotta love it,

RE: Bluetooth is the future
JonathanChoo @ 5/6/2004 9:50:21 AM #
Have to disagree, I have been using Bluetooth since 2001 and its anything but unfriendly. It is far easier to use than WiFi in wireless connectivity and most newcomers can set up a Bluetooth device in less than 5 minutes as long as they read the manual. Even without a manual, a Palm T3 can be configured to connect to a GPRS mobile in less than 2 minutes using the Phone Link app.

Bluetooth IS already mainstream in the UK for the past one year and we have bluetooth phones since 2001 (Ericsson T39m being one example).

--
Psion 5> Vx > m505 > N770C > T625C > NR70V > e310 > T/T > HP h2210 > T/T3 & h4150
StarTac 75 > T28m > T39m > T68m > T610 > T630

RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
JarJar @ 5/6/2004 10:46:25 AM #
Maybe in the UK Bluetooth is prevalent--I don't know. I am in the US. Here in the US, people are already claiming the rule of Bluetooth, but this is mostly PR spin. Bluetooth isn't mainstream--there are technology buffs and early adopters. People will cite statistics of the number of units and licenses sold; however these statistics are misleading since these are the licenses and not necessarily working devices. Phones with Bluetooth potential but aren't actually being used are included in the count.
RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
Louis Berk @ 5/6/2004 12:53:34 PM #
>Even without a manual, a Palm T3 can be configured to >connect to a GPRS mobile in less than 2 minutes using >the Phone Link app.

To be fair, Palm have done an outstanding job in this area. My criticism falls on laptop and after-market devices which are generally horrendous to set up or use.

Well done Palm (but then I guess we all would agree with that!)

Louis

RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
Patrick @ 5/6/2004 12:57:17 PM #
I'm glad things are working for you Jonathan, however even a cursory look over the Palm boards would see thread after thread of people having trouble with Bluetooth.

On my part, I bought the Belkin dongle and, after much grief, finally got it to connect to my PC. Then I find out that if anyone uses Fast User Switch on my XP Pro box, the Bluetooth stack crashes. Each and every time.

I disconnected the dongle and uninstalled the software. Too frustrating for words.



RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
ganoe @ 5/7/2004 2:37:51 AM #
> I'm glad things are working for you Jonathan, however even
> a cursory look over the Palm boards would see thread after
> thread of people having trouble with Bluetooth.

Well what in the world did you buy a Palm OS device for? Even a cursory look over the Palm boards would see thread after thread of people having trouble with their PalmOne, Sony, etc. PDA.

RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
Patrick @ 5/7/2004 6:18:53 PM #
You're right, PDAs are problematic, too. I bought a PDA not expecting perfection, similar to my attitude when I bought a Bluetooth dongle. I was willing to take a chance. I have now purchased 4 PDAs and have had problems with all of them. The reason I continue, and the reason I think these devices truly qualify as mainstream, is because I have found solutions for all of the problems that matter to me.

The difference with Bluetooth is that there is NO solution available for my Bluetooth stack crashing, other than to give up on a convenient and well-used feature of our PC's operating system. That, together with the endless "Bluetooth moving towards the mainstream" predictions year after year just makes me want to gag.

Hey, this is just my opinion, but if you read this thread it certainly appears I'm not alone in having it.


RE: Yeah, yeah, yeah - heard it all before
ganoe @ 5/7/2004 7:08:59 PM #
> Hey, this is just my opinion, but if you read this thread it
> certainly appears I'm not alone in having it.

Well, you've managed to completely miss my point. The Internet is full of people posting about their problems. When was the last time you posted on the PalmInfocenter.com Site Suggestions and Feedback forum how great the website is working for you?

Bluetooth press releases ad nauseum...

;-(( @ 5/5/2004 5:37:16 PM #
If the Bluetooth consortium spent half as much time developing their protocols as they do sending out press releases, sponsored "surveys" and predictions based on sponsored market "analysis", Bluetooth would have evolved into the highest lifeform on Earth by now.

After four years we still can't even get a Bluetooth phone that doesn't sound like you're talking in a cave. But according to press releases, Bluetooth is the Messiah Returned.

All the phony hype in the world won't change the fact that North Americans don't care about Bluetooth. (For starters, Verizon and Sprint didn't even have any Bluetooth cellphones available until recently.)


Freedom of speech, baby. Gotta love it,

So when is palmOne adopting?

Altema @ 5/5/2004 6:12:58 PM #
BT SD card drivers for palmOne OS5 devices anyone? A double whammy is the cool games coming out with BT... Let's see, I have BT card and drivers for my OS4 device, but the games require OS5...

RE: So when is palmOne adopting?
cbowers @ 5/5/2004 6:52:58 PM #
Well it's not PalmOne's fault they keep backing horses too early, we keep encouraging them with sales (or do we, given the recent Gartner results).

They put all their eggs in SD loooong before there were useful devices in that format to displace CF (and we still have an SDIO mess), adopting bluetooth too early when they should have backed wifi as well, and now the mini-usb bandwagon.

Sony Ericsson CDMA bluetooth t608

drw @ 5/5/2004 8:22:05 PM #
Bluetooth-enabled CDMA phones are beginning to emerge onto the market, with Sprint PCS carrying a Sony Ericsson CDMA/AMPS Bluetooth-enabled phone
----

I wouldn't characterize a one time only production run of 10k t608's an emergence, especially since SE has long since said they are quitting the CDMA busines and focusing on GSM.

I had a t608 for awhile. It had bugs which were fixed by a master reset, but never got it to re-provision data after that. Am much happier with my T-mo t610. Bluetooth headset works fine, but wish there was an OS5 bluetooth SD for my Tungsten C.

---
David

RE: Sony Ericsson CDMA bluetooth T608
;-(( @ 5/5/2004 10:25:12 PM #
The T608 is still the coolest phone on the market + you get Sprint/Verizon reception - which proobaby beats the c r a p out of your T-Mobile/Cingular.

Buggy phone? Sure it is. Horrible battery life? Yes. But it looks cool (until the paint wears off), has no stupid camera and the reception is killer. If they'd only made a second generation (like the T630) Sony Ericsson could have made the perfect phone.

Freedom of speech, baby. Gotta love it,

RE: Sony Ericsson CDMA bluetooth t608
Konstantin @ 5/6/2004 1:12:52 AM #
I guess some people have deeper needs and heavy priorities. Otherwise I could not possibly see why someone would want a communication device which is... doh , unable to communicate because of the ?dead battery?

But then again it look awsome kool !

More than just headests...

Midknyte @ 5/6/2004 12:55:16 PM #
Bluetooth is keen-o. With a T-Mobile data plan you get to be your own hotspot. Sure, it's slow (feels like 36k) but it's not metered & it's cheap ($20).

If I want to hit a web page, I don't have to stay at my desk. I can pack up and check it out on the train on the way home. I can sit in bed with my laptop and not have to fetch the phone cord. I can sit in the living room, the deck, it goes on and on...

RE: More than just headests...
tfftruoa @ 5/10/2004 7:11:39 PM #
I certainly agree.

I use bluetooth all the time, both with my phone (SE T68i) and my desktop (which is basically an always on server). I don't even own a bluetooth headset, though I may buy one. If I need to check my email or log onto aim for a few minutes, I can. Anywhere. In my home, BT works just like wifi, with my desktop serving like an access point. Away from home, it's a wireless modem. When I'm with a friend who has a BT palm, it's a game-link cable. Basically , it's more flexable (albiet slower and less powerful) of a standard than wifi.

Slightly off topic. What are the details of the t-mobile unlimited data plan? (speed, costs for voice use, availability of netowrk, etc.) I have AT&T and their gprs is expensive, so I'm thinking of switching to t-mobile when my contract expires.

The Federation for the Responsible Use of Acronyms

Top

Account

Register Register | Login Log in
user:
pass: