(keitai-l) Re: Camera phones - USB & WPAN

From: Benjamin <bkml_at_mac.com>
Date: 07/25/02
Message-Id: <C7B81308-9FC0-11D6-A2C8-003065FB21DC@mac.com>
On Thursday, July 25, 2002, at 07:30 , Ken Chang wrote:

> let's do two things first, (A) separate the physical/data-link,
> network, and application layers, and then (B) find out what're
> the core problems that Bluetooth will solve.

Who cares ?

The ONLY thing that really matters is:

will I be able TO DO AWAY WITH THOSE DAMN CABLES ?

for doing away with cables is the *prime objective* here

anything else is a matter of engineering which can be sorted out while 
the technology is being adopted. And if there is a significant problem 
with packing so many different usage patterns all into one protocol, 
well then eventually different modes of operation may evolve, for 
example ...

- very low range/low bandwidth mode:

say maximum 50 cm; 20Kpbs; keyboards, mice, tablets. bar code readers etc

- low range/high bandwidth mode:

say max 1 meter; full bandwidth/burst data; CD drives, cameras, device 
sync etc

- mid range/mid bandwidth mode:

say 1-2 meters; 200Kbps; modems, earphones, speakers, mics, headsets etc

long range/very low bandwidth mode:

full range; 300 - 2400 bps; any remote control application

Personally, I don't care whether BT can do that all today or not, or how 
suitable it is to evolve there or not. All I know is that BT is opening 
the door to get there and USB and Firewire are not, because they require 
cabling. You got to start somewhere in order to give a platform to 
companies to develop applications such as I had described and see how 
well they do in the market and how best to do them. Once there is an 
installed base and typical usage patterns are known, then the transport 
technology can be further developed and optimised to best accommodate 
those usage patterns.

Perhaps you are right and people will prefer to use cables to send 
pictures from their camera to a printer or a desktop computer. Perhaps 
they rather fiddle 30 seconds with the cabling in order to save 25 
seconds transfer time on a faster interface. But then again, they may 
embrace BT for all that remote control stuff I described, which cannot 
be done without a wireless multi-access system and which doesn't require 
bandwidth at all (how many bit/sec do you need to tell your TV to switch 
channels ? -- It would seem anything above 10 or 20 bytes per second 
will be plenty). If that turns out to be the typical usage, then the 
further evolvement of the technology would be taking quite a different 
path. You can only tell once there are applications actively being 
tested in the market.

USB and Firewire may do for certain applications, particular those they 
are being used for already, but they are totally inadequate for most of 
the applications I have described. A jack in the armrest simply won't do 
if I want to program my rice cooker or VCR.

regards
benjamin
Received on Thu Jul 25 14:23:52 2002