|
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 | |||||
 |
 
|
 |
CTIA: Software blocks Bluetooth interoperabilityBy Robert Keenan
Clearly, acceptance of Bluetooth technology is on the rise across the world. During the panel, CSR Vice President of Marketing Eric Janson said that more than 30 million chipsets shipped in the sector in 2002 and that the industry is projected to double in 2003, shipping more than 60 million chipsets.
As option for Bluetooth technology grows, end users will begin looking for ways to link all sorts of Bluetooth devices together. What they will likely find, however, is that their Bluetooth device works with some products and not with others. The reason: if the same software profile is not supported on both Bluetooth products, interoperability is lost.
As Janson points out, potential interoperability issues don't have to do with the system self. In fact, from a hardware perspective, Janson said that interoperability is fairly "watertight". But, if the same profiles aren't supported on all the devices, interoperability could be compromised.
Profiles are application-specific software additions to the Bluetooth protocol stack that allow designers to optimize a Bluetooth link for a particular market. For example, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) has defined profiles for printing, linking mice and keyboard, and providing audio support, just to name a few. This capability has been heralded as one of the big wins for making Bluetooth a more powerful solution for the market than older technologies like IrDA, said Eric Schneider, marketing programs manager for the Bluetooth SIG.
But, Bluetooth's biggest benefits can also be one of the industry's biggest challenges. Currently the Bluetooth spec defines in detail the necessary lower-level software components needed to receive certification. But, once designers venture above the host control interface (HCI) layer, manufacturers have the freedom to implement the software profiles they feel necessary for a design.
During the panel discussion, Janson said that manufacturers would choose the profiles implemented on their system based on overall system requirements, such as memory usage. That decision, he said, needs to remain in the hands of the manufacturers. "It's not realistic for the SIG to specify what profiles manufacturer should or should not use," Janson said.
Guidance Needed
Whether realistic or not, the industry is once again turning to the SIG for guidance on the matter. Across the board, the panelists, which also included representatives from Ericsson and Mobilian, agreed that the sector needs to get to a point where difference in profiles will not hinder end users from establishing Bluetooth links. In response, the SIG is currently putting together a set of guidelines that will list the basic profiles designers should implement when developing Bluetooth for a PC, handset, and other mobile devices. The SIG expects to have two of these guidelines out to the market in the second quarter of 2003, Schneider said.
The SIG's efforts, however, bring the group just short in providing a formal spec on these recommendations. The profiles described in the guidelines are items companies "should" implement, Schneider said. But, he admitted that the final decision for what "is" submitted will remain at the manufacturer, leaving the potential for continued interoperability headaches for Bluetooth users.
Lack of a firm stance could provide another black eye for the already troubled Bluetooth sector. After fighting off the initial over-hype of the technology, the Bluetooth sector has worked out some of the kinks and ambiguities in the protocol to provide a stronger spec for the market. Additionally, chip developers have worked hard to drop component costs, allowing them to reach the sub-$5 plateau that many touted as an inflexion point for Bluetooth adoption. In fact, as Janson pointed out during the panel, designers can implement a full Bluetooth solution on the board for approximately $4.
But all this work could be for naught if end users can't get these systems to easily operate in the field. "We have to brow beat the equipment so it's easy to use," Janson said.
One option is to develop a GUI interface that allows informs users what profiles are available on a particular device. Janson said several companies, including CSR, are working on this type of a software offering.
Letting the Users Decide
Another approach could lie in taking the decision away from the manufacturer and putting it in the end users hands. By creating a standard application-programming interface (API), software designers could develop profiles that can be implemented by end users across multiple platforms, thus allowing end users to determine what profiles they need and what devices they embed those profiles on.
While an interesting idea, members of the panel dodged the topic of an open API only saying that it could create potential "political issues" within the SIG.
As the SIG defines guidelines and wrestles with interoperability issues, end users are left to track down solutions on their own.
Manufacturers are also working to ensure that interoperability remains is happening. Market Researcher and Panel Moderator Andrew Seybold said that several PC manufacturers are upset that they have to run interoperability tests to ensure that systems work with their computers. But, they are going to run the tests to ensure a better consumer experience, Seybold added.
For more information about the issues, products and technologies in this story, go to flashing icon in the upper left column on the home page
or go to the iAppliance Web Views
page and call up the associatively-linked XML/Java Web map
of the iApplianceWeb site and search for product information since the beginning
of 2002.
|
|
| |||||
Terms and Conditions Privacy Statement | ||||||||||
