Bluetooth is not almost dead. My sister works in sales, and her job depends on having a Bluetooth receiver in her ear at all times so she can multitask talking to clients with getting data from a computer (or, unfortunately, driving). I'm guessing that's true for most in sales, marketing, or any job that relies on constant contact with people.
'Almost dead' implies it is going away. I think you'd have a riot from these people if they even had an inkling that such a thing was going to happen.
She also uses Bluetooth to wirelessly (and seamlessly) connect an iPad to a powered stereo speaker. Later revs of Bluetooth, which new phones are starting to implement, allow faster data connections.
Bluetooth is almost dead technology, look at the new smartphones, they lack of many Bluetooth features like IP over bluetooth, file transfer or simple serial port. 5 years ago, almost all smartphones and palptops had support for plenty of bluetooth protocols, now only headphone is supported. Do you remember IRDA protocol/interface? Bluetooth sooner or later will divide its fate, at least in consumer market.
How do you forcast the future of Bluetooth Low Energy ? This technology is very nice for low power portable devices connected to mobile phones but Apple is rather slow to enable all the APIs and Samsung/Android Galaxy S III suffers from some bugs. It seems that they have not tested the system before to launch it on the market.
True. The WWW succeded in making (initially) PCs desirable for the common joe, and PC sales took off after 1994, as a result.
My point is that for innovations to continue to happen, the RANZ model has to generate some kind of reward. Zero royalties is great, but the scheme still has to be self sustaining.
That's how the IETF and to a lesser extent the IEEE work as well. The companies involved invest their talent in the efforts of these organizations, but they will only do so with some payoff in sight. Just getting a lot of devices to use a new standard won't matter a hill of beans, if there isn't any upside to those who invested in creating it.
You don't get something for nothing.
By that definition the World Wide Web has not been a success, since Tim Berners-Lee received no direct remuneration from it! There's much more to success than just money...
The success of Bluetooth is that it's become a universal standard, despite (or maybe because of) the fact that no-one owns it.
That's a great story about how the name was chosen!
It is a wonder that anyone can come up with a clever new name for a standard, a company or a brand anymore. Lawyers need to do trademark searches, and a proposed name needs to be translated into dozens of different languages to catch unintended meanings or connotations.
But for certain purposes, an uninspired name-choosing methodology can also work. Intel's project code names are geographic locations -- presumably because those won't be trademarked. And in the IT world, computer host names are now usually just semi-meaningless alphanumeric sequences, while in the good old days our Unix computers were named after the Greek gods, great beers of the world, rock bands, and a plethora of other interesting themes.
A bit of a strange way of gauging "success," I guess, since the developers get no direct compensation for their design efforts. The RANDZ model bets on revenues achieved from the increased sale of products that make use of Bluetooth, such as cell phones and automobile audio systems.
So I would think that "success" of Bluetooth should be measured on the basis of increased volume and/or increased revenues from those other industries, which have adopted Bluetooth.