Further Thoughts on the New Name - Bluetooth Low Energy

One of my colleague was in the Bluetooth Sports & Fitness Day this Monday. I can not wait to chat with him but search the internet for any information. I got this one I4U News - Bluetooth Low Energy, but what most interests me is the comment on the name.

"Bluetooth Low Energy needs a better name. It needs to be shorter and low energy has dual meaning. It also means something negative like in having low energy. Let us either call it Bluetooth LE or how about “Greentooth” or something completely different?"

I expressed some of my initial responses to the change in my last blog. I am definitely not the only one that feels the awkwardness. On my second thoughts, from marketing point of view, "Low Energy" does not bring in any benefit, rather further confusion, as mentioned by I4U News. There is no explanation from any marketing sense for Bluetooth to give up ULP. I can only seek reasons from technical point of view that more features added make this protocol unable to commit to ultra low power. The name change is just a corner of the iceberg.

I reviewed the presentations of Bluetooth meeting of last Oct. Here are some interesting points that was promoted by guys like Robin Heydon of CSR and many others. I won't say Bluetooth Low Energy is off the track now, but I think it is time for the core team to review these points again.

“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.” – Albert Einstein

"RFC1925
(1) It Has To Work.
(5) It is always possible to agglutinate multiple separate problems into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases this is a bad idea.
(7a) Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three).
(10) One size never fits all.
(12) In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

"KIDS - Keep It Damn Simple"