Bluetooth vs Wireless USB
Monday, September 18th, 2006This one really came up out of nowhere: Wireless USB, a standard for ultra-wideband wireless comminications over short ranges, replicating the use of USB. It can reach speeds of up to 480 mbit/sec with distances up to 3 meters, and up to 110 mbit/sec over ten meters, and they include USB->WUSB bridges to connect pre-existing USB devices wirelessly.
USB tends to serve the same tasks that Bluetooth does (such as data communication with small devices, and collecting input from devices such as keyboards and mice), and with a little tweaking (such as provideing additional standardized task profiles to cover what Bluetooth has and USB doesn’t), WUSB can completely replace Bluetooth… except for the fact that Bluetooth is already widely available, and few devices plan on supporting Wireless USB.
I can’t help see this as another Firewire vs USB war: one is better than the other, yet the worse performing one proliferates because it is cheaper to manufacture, and I see Bluetooth as already having won this one.
That said, I’m actually interested in WUSB as a cheaper replacement of Canon’s WiFi module for their DSLR camera line… all the module does is allow you to upload files to a FTP server on your network, and it doesn’t allow you to interact* with the camera like you can with Canon’s special software, which communicates over USB.
* Yes, this does include dumping photos directly to your computer, just like the WiFi module can. It can also allow you to set things that you can access through the interface (such as ISO, shutter time, white balance, autofocus settings) and it can also take a picture.