Indeed I don't think Bluetooth will lose it's place. Perhaps be shifted a little towards low power applications. And considering that NFC will be available in many mobile phones perhaps the pairing hussle will definitely be made easier.
I still kind of don't get Wi-Fi direct yet. Actually I'm starting to think that Wi-fi Direct is not actually covering an uncovered market but making a political battle. I think the Wi-Fi alliance is more on the USA side and the Bluetooth SIG is more on the Europe side isn't it?
So aren't we seeing a disguised battle here? What do you think?
@iniewski: hello again, I was just about to ask you how the event went. I will wait for the slides at your website. I imagine Whistler is beautiful at this time of the year, so enjoy your time there as well.
In the comment "Stuffing too many radios onto one die can also result in a very large chip, creating yield and thermal issues..." leaves out one other challenge -it becomes impractical to use such packages with large number of I/O's to connect with the board. This is a common problem faced also by the system designers of the 40G/100G mother boards. I do not know all of the complexities in a combined 3G/4G/LTE/GPS radio chip design but I would imagine both of the foregoing two problems can exploit the chip-to-chip interconnecting benefits of stacking using Si interposers. The line width and spacing in a Si interposer is a couple of microns whereas the PCB world is stuck at 3-mils.
We recently had Mr. Hurlston side by side with a Qualcomm VP at Silicon Valley's IEEE Comsoc event (both were very civil and admitted it was a rare feat!) presenting on this very topic. If you are interested in the presentation, here is the link:
I don't think WiFi would displace Bluetooth, there are simply very different technologies in terms of throoughput, power dissipation and appplication space...but I see Bluetooth being displaced eventually with very low power alternative, many of which are appearing here and there...Kris
I worked in a company for a WiMAX chip and that company was acquired by Broadcom. I did not know why 'low power' was given high focus, especially for a WiMAX chip where datarates are high - there was an attempt to use 'power aware' test hardware and on-chip pattern generation.
Bluetooth low energy is geared toward small, low powered devices like wristwatches and battery (or energy scavenging) powered sensors. Datarates are low, but so is power consumption. WiFi Direct takes much more power but the datarates are much higher. They are complementary.
As far as WiFi Direct obsoleting Bluetooth altogether, that remains to be seen.