A reader of this blog recently e-mailed me to ask what I know about the differences between Bluetooth and Wibree. I had to admit to myself that I really didn’t understand the differences and similarities much better than my reader. So I set out to educate myself.
First stop was Wikipedia, where I uncovered the follow definitions for the two technologies.
Wibree – “a digital radio technology (intended to become an open radio standard) designed for ultra low power consumption (button cell battery) within a short range (10 meters / 30 feet) based around low-cost transceiver microchips in each device.”
Bluetooth – “an industrial specification for wireless personal area networks (PANs). Bluetooth provides a way to connect and exchange information between devices such as mobile phones, laptops, PCs, printers, digital cameras and video game consoles via a secure, globally unlicensed short-range radio frequency.”
Wikipedia further explained that WiBree, which operates in the 2.4 GHz band, is designed to complement Bluetooth (although in some circles the two are slated as competitors). WiBree, it should be noted, is new—completion of the specification is expected sometime next year.
Yes, I did mention that WiBree is new, didn’t I? The technology was unveiled in early October by Nokia; that company’s Research Center developed Wibree “as an open industry initiative extending local connectivity to small devices.”
Nokia focused much of its roll-out marketing of Wibree on the new technology’s low power consumption (up to ten times more efficient than Bluetooth), and said Wibree complements other forms of connectivity, such as Bluetooth.
“Wibree is the first open technology offering connectivity between mobile devices or Personal Computers, and small, button cell battery power devices such as watches, wireless keyboards, toys and sports sensors,” Nokia said in an Oct. 3 press release.
So Wibree isn’t a Bluetooth competitor then? I admit that, like MobileTech blogger John Shepler, I was at first suspicious that Wibree is “an example of a big manufacturer looking to establish a proprietary standard so they can hog the market for lower power wireless devices.”
In a recent post, though, Shepler points out that despite Wibree being spearheaded by Nokia, the new standard really is an open project designed to create low-power PANs or Personal Area Networks.
While Bluetooth 2.0, with its 15-30 foot range and up to 3 Mbps bandwidth, fills the niche of most PAN applications nicely, Shepler says that Wibree has a place, too.
“Nokia believes the low power consumption will enable applications that use the small button type batteries to gain wireless access,” Shepler writes. “Perhaps this will also include in-the-ear headsets much like the invisible hearing aids. Who knows, maybe a combination hearing aid / wireless headset will be a hit with the legions of rock music deafened baby boomers now addicted to their cell phones.”
Now that’s a scary thought.
So, we’ve established that Wibree is designed to interoperate with Bluebooth, and that its low power consumption enable it to be useful in very small devices like watches. Wibree may be new, but the kid has potential to knock Bluetooth off its throne.
That may not happen right away (especially since commercial roll-out won’t happen until second quarter of 2006), but my guess is that if Wibree is everything people are saying, the new kid on the block will one day be in charge, especially if its bandwidth capabilities for Wibree are boosted.
Some key manufacturers see the potential in Wibree, too. A quick stop to Nokia’s Wibree pages reveals that the technology already is licensed by Broadcom, CSR, Epson and Nordic Semiconductor. Meanwhile, Suunto and Taiyo Yuden are contributing expertise to development of the standard.
What do you think—is Wibree better than Bluetooth? If they’re competitive, which will win?
Recent Comments