To debate Bluetooth's merit and future, EE Times brought together Paul Marino, general manager of connectivity for Philips Semiconductors, a Bluetooth chip supplier, and Craig Mathias, principal at Farpoint Group, who has predicted the demise of Bluetooth. Patrick Mannion officiated. The complete debate can be heard online at http://i.cmpnet.com/commsdesign/2004/btinterview.mp3.

EE Times: What do you think will be the effect of the decision by Ericsson, the inventor of Bluetooth technology, to discontinue development of Bluetooth chips?

Paul Marino: None. There will be absolutely no effect. As it was pointed out several times, what Ericsson wanted to do in the late '90s was to create a wireless technology that could be used for a lot of "stuff." And when you embark on a new endeavor you have to create the ecosystem; the infrastructure, terminals, software, intellectual property and momentum. That's what they have done. While the market has started to mature it's natural to begin leaving the ecosystem to live and breathe by itself and for the initiating company to focus on its core competency. IP [intellectual-property] licensing is not its core competency. It was a necessity to stimulate and create the market.

Craig Mathias: I'm inclined to agree, but as the originator of the technology, if they saw any future in it — as in, it would contribute to their bottom line — they would have continued with it. The fact that the originator of the technology decided to dump it is a sign that Ericsson is moving on and I think a lot of other firms will move on too as they begin to look at other short-range radio technologies that are far superior to BT.

Marino: We need to differentiate between selling and making money out of IP and making money out of their core competency, which is infrastructure and terminals, especially when you see Sony, Nokia and Motorola phones coming with BT technology.

Mathias: I think when Ericsson looked forward and saw the potential for the current generation of BT products (not the protocol, but the radio), they went, "Ah! There's better stuff on the horizon." I venture Ericsson will come out with products that incorporate other short-range technologies.

Marino: I am absolutely convinced that's true. But it doesn't mean it will be instead of BT technology, and it doesn't say when.

Mathias: I've contended for some time now that because of BT's very low data performance it's absolutely a goner when it comes to other techs; we're looking at Wi-Fi and UWB [ultrawideband] in phones. In other words, the wholesale replacement of the BT MAC [media-access control] and PHY [physical layer].

Marino: I fundamentally disagree. You know, Craig, you were one of the first people to say two years ago that BT is dead, and one year ago that BT is dead, and you're going to say it until BT will be dead, and I'm sure at the end you'll be right. . . . The question is when is the end? I guess there has to be some value in making forecasts and predictions.

Mathias: And there is, and it's an end that's sooner rather than later as the bulk of the BT market is headsets. It doesn't have the same penetration as Wi-Fi.

Marino: Yes, Wi-Fi is one of the greatest successes of the last few years; I'm just unconvinced that BT is dead. I think BT will become a standard feature. [Look at] legislation that makes it illegal to drive and use your phone [that] will spur more penetration of BT into the car; just read the articles — dogs with BT collars, laptop computers with BT from Dell and HP.

Mathias: You're confusing activity with progress. Look at IrDA. It [infrared] died as a transceiver technology some time ago.

Marino: Have you seen a laptop without IrDa? — because I haven't.

Mathias: I just bought an IBM x40 with no IrDa — but it doesn't need IrDA as it has Wi-Fi built in — and that's my point: Wi-Fi can easily replace BT and IrDA and all those other short-range technologies, with the possible exception of UWB and very high-bandwidth wireless USB applications.

Marino: I'm sorry, Craig, but you're not making the distinction between what is a [wireless] PAN [personal-area network] and [wireless] LAN [local-area network]. You cannot use with the same type of facility the Wi-Fi network to do the instant, ad hoc connection that allows you to synchronize and print at the snap of a finger. You'd be using the technology [Wi-Fi] for something that it was not built for.

Mathias: You're not saying that Wi-Fi cannot be used for printing and synchronization and quick wireless PAN interconnect? Because it most certainly can.

Marino: It's bending it and it's not with the same facility — you can use BT for networking if you want to.

Mathias: But with less than 1 Mbit/second of throughput, you're wasting your time.

Marino: We've all agreed that one of the lessons of BT was to not overpromise and underdeliver.

Mathias: That's a marketing issue. I'm talking here about the reality of the technology: Wi-Fi can do everything that BT can.

Marino: I still believe there's a difference between a PAN and LAN; there's a difference in power consumption and cost.

Mathias: I don't see the differences as much anymore. I really don't.

EET: Is BT also being squeezed on the low end by NFC [near-field communication] and RFID?

Marino: Well, why don't you also bring in Zigbee on the low end? The RFID and NFC are not really applicable because of their very short range, and Zigbee will have quite a few applications. But I'd submit that you cannot ignore the importance of a technology that is established and that has bodies that can verify the conformance and interoperability. I don't think any phone manufacturer will just refrain from putting BT on their phones while awaiting UWB.

Mathias: It will take a while. And the first step will be the replacement of BT with Wi-Fi. Wi-FI will have to be in telephone handsets going forward — it's essential that it be there.

Marino: I'm absolutely in agreement with you there, Craig, you will see such product beyond the very exotic models that have been offered, but you will see them together with BT — not instead of BT.

Mathias: For a while that will be true, but the BT radio will quietly disappear.

Marino: Again, the "for a while" gives you an "out" to use the "I told you so" three or five years from now when BT disappears.

Mathias: I'm looking at it from the user's perspective and you're looking at it from the manufacturer's perspective; I never said tons and tons of BT wouldn't be sold — I merely said they wouldn't be used. They're not being used by the end user. . . . That situation will not go on for very long — it can't. It might be five years before we see the last BT light go out, but in the interim we're moving forward with technologies that are much more appropriate to what the user needs.

EET: Any estimate how long BT will be around for?

Marino: BT will last for as long as I have visibility in the market. See? I learned something from Craig.