Short-Range Wireless Connectivity: A Complementary Comparison (cont.)
by Puneet Gupta
IrDA vs Bluetooth
If you examine the benefits of each technology, you can see that Bluetooth and IrDA are both critical to the marketplace.
Each technology has advantages and drawbacks and neither can meet all users' needs. Bluetooth's ability to penetrate solid
objects and its capability for maximum mobility within the piconet allows for data exchange applications that are very difficult
or impossible with IrDA. For example, with Bluetooth, a person could synchronize their phone with a PC without taking the phone
out of their pocket or purse (this is not possible with IrDA). The omni-directional capability of Bluetooth allows synchronization
to start when the phone is brought into range of the PC.
On the other hand, in applications involving one to one data exchange,
IrDA is at an advantage. Consider an application where there are many people sitting across a table in a meeting. Electronic
cards can be exchanged between any two people by pointing the IrDA devices towards each other (because of the directional nature).
On the other hand since Bluetooth is omnidirectional in nature, the Bluetooth device will detect all similar devices in the room
and the user would have to select the intended person from say, a list provided by the Bluetooth device. On the security front
Bluetooth provides security mechanisms which are not present in IrDA. However the narrow beam (in the case of IrDA) provides a low
level of security. IrDA beats Bluetooth on the cost front. A manufacturer can get an IrDA solution ready for $1 US. Bluetooth
is costly in comparison but the prices are expected to fall.
The Bluetooth standard defines the layers 1 and 2 of the OSI model. The application framework of Bluetooth is aimed to achieve
interoperability with IrDA and WAP. In adddition, a host of other applications will be able to use the Bluetooth technology and protocols.
