| Paul Busby 2005-05-19, 11:58 am |
| Thus spake J. Clarke:
> Paul Busby wrote:
>
>
> I've not had that problem.
>
>
> So?
>
>
> You're missing the point. Imagine a keyboard with an Ethernet card
> in it and how you would make that work with a PC and you might begin
> to understand the problem. It's not "connectivity", it's that wifi
> was NOT DESIGNED TO CONNECT KEYBOARDS.
>
> Bluetooth is designed to support keyboards and headsets and the like,
> wifi is designed to carry TCP/IP packets. Different purposes.
>
>
> Where? What companies are manufacturing "UWB" products, what
> companies are buying them, how many are sold each year?
>
>
> What does this have to do with your claim that there is a "large
> market" for some alternative product that doesn't appear to exist?
> Note how many computers of any kind come from the far east. What of
> it? The Orientals can make decent cheap computers, decent cheap cell
> phones, decent cheap cars, and decent cheap just about anything else.
> More power to them.
>
>
> Intel is working on many things. What of it?
>
>
> In the US one gets sued if one sneezes in a manner that a litigious
> person finds offensive. Lawsuits are in the process of replacing
> baseball as the national pastime. What of it? If Verizon _loses_
> the suit, then it becomes news.
>
>
> That's funny, I've noticed no paucity of Bluetooth devices in the US.
> Certainly they are available at every computer or office-supply or
> consumer electronics store that I've visited recently.
>
> If you are expecting Bluetooth to become a competitor to 802.11, it's
> not going to happen anymore than keyboard cables are going to become
> competitors to network cables. They aren't the same. They don't do
> the same thing, they aren't supposed to do the same thing, why are
> you having trouble with this?
>
> Bluetooth is not wifi, wifi is not Bluetooth, you can do things with
> Bluetooth that are very difficult or impossible with wifi, you can do
> things with wifi that are very difficult or impossible with
> Bluetooth, the two are _not_ in competition, and pretending that they
> are shows a marked misunderstanding of both products.
>
> I think you will find that network cables outsell keyboard cables by
> a wide margin. By your reasoning this would indicate that networks
> are replacing keyboards. Do you see what's wrong with that
> assessment?
>
>
> Why? I certainly see no need for EDR for any use to which I would
> put a Bluetooth device. I don't see why one would _want_ to stream
> video via Bluetooth unless someone wants to make video goggles that
> connect to a cell phone or some such.
>
>
> The state of the art in electronics and computer science has been
> changing rapidly for decades, and the end is not coming soon.
> Bluetooth is a transient technology, just as 802.11 is a transient
> technology, and PCI, and AGP, and IDE, and Arcnet and CRT displays
> and the rest. I don't see why you find this disturbing. Yes,
> something is going to replace Bluetooth. It may be an improved
> Bluetooth or it may be 802.15 or it may be something else. So what?
> For now it does what I want it to do and I'll worry about tomorrow
> when it comes.
I think I'll agree to disagree even if you don't & am left wondering if you
are not arguing for its own sake. I am aware of the differences between IEEE
802.11x & BT but that's not my point!
--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!
|