Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#101

Post by The_Colonel »

bornfreddy wrote: post #98
noir_lord wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's sad that my family uses the available Bluetooth devices less than if there was a wire we could just plug into. I specifically buy wired gaming headphones, wired mice and wired keyboards - if there is any sensible wired option I'll take it every time, I even have an extra long network cable I can throw across the living room for the laptop. Wireless stuff is just less reliable and always seems to throw issues w…

I agree 99% - the exception being the mouse. Since it is meant to be moved around, any obstacle (such as cable) really changes how it handles. I didn't believe it until I went to wireless and then (for a short time) back. Otherwise agree for keyboard, network, headphones,... Wires work.

Well, head moves quite a lot as well. Out of all wireless things, the headphones have been the biggest revolution for me.

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#102

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

bee_rider wrote: post #82
zachallaun wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my favorite wireless devices is a Logitech gaming mouse (G903) that I use with a mousepad that is also a charging mat. It uses a low-latency proprietary wireless protocol: https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/innovation/lightspeed.html

Logitech's silly little plug-in receivers seem to be weirdly better than bluetooth, and they have been for as long as I remember. I don't really get why. If they have some magic technology in there, how has the Bluetooth SIG not managed to copy it?

My understanding is that one of BT's big problems is that it's underspecified, so every implementation is slightly incompatible. Only having to deal with one implementation is therefore probably enough magic, but the BT SIG can't just copy it without changing the spec.

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#104

Post by ikeboy »

JLCarveth wrote: post #77
bee_rider wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have other non-Apple devices with which you encounter pairing difficulties? My experience with Bluetooth headphones was that on an iPhone they were occasionally annoying, while on Linux they were quite poor and on Windows they were more like a practical joke. This would have been like 4-5 years ago though, maybe all the stacks have been improved.

Honestly my linux desktop (Ubuntu 22.04) is where I run into the fewest issues regarding my bluetooth headphones. I've never had an issue connecting to them.

I've had issues where every other time I connect my Sony XM5 to Ubuntu 22.04, it decides to use HFP instead of A2DP which has significantly worse audio quality for music. I need to reset Bluetooth to fix it. None of the solutions online for disabling this "helpful" feature work.

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#105

Post by natch »

xlii wrote: post #68
natch wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you are suggesting that the Bluetooth SIG did just a fine job with the technology, no problems there, and that people like Apple don't see fit to use the money in their budget to cough up a membership fee? Seeing as how it is Apple devices on which I often encounter pairing difficulties. Super convenient for the SIG that they can point fingers like this (I wonder if that's why they set it up as you describe, ugh)…

AFAIK it's not about Apple, but about other producers either polluting spectrum or plainly ignoring specs. There was a post about Logitech not creating a lot of interference with their MX products ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31939424 ). Interestingly enough getting rid of Logitech devices fixed most of the BT issues I had.

That’s a good point and something I could look into (very) locally in my setup. Not many non-Apple devices around except a couple of cars and one mouse but yeah they could be causing problems.

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#106

Post by blibble »

systemvoltage wrote: post #95
blibble wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

vendor id is 16-bit so should be enough for 65535 of them

Yea a bunch of these are reserved. I remember jumping through the whole process when we were designing a usb device. To counter my own point, it takes money and people to run a standards committee and it is important to keep in mind that funding has to come from somewhere. Here are more details of what it takes to run one: https://stackoverflow.com/a/22968431/3908009 IMO they should either be funded by gov or by larg…

yes, $4k/year doesn't seem that bad for a company that's going to be producing a commercial product

(and of course if you're just hacking locally you can do whatever you want as it's an open standard)

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#107

Post by IshKebab »

rchaud wrote: post #53

I'd been using BT for the past decade as a wireless receiver for audio or mouse/KB. It's only very recently that I discovered that you could use it to transmit files from Device A to Device B. No middleman app or cloud sync service needed! Considering how awful USB file sync is between Mac OS and Android, I don't even break out the cable to transfer files anymore. The downside is that transmission speeds are very slo…

You can use wi-fi direct for that now with decent speeds. The only issue is it is so hard to discover!

On Android you find a file and then Share -> Nearby. The recipient might need to fiddle in settings to enable it.

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#108

Post by georgeecollins »

PaulHoule wrote: post #4
david927 wrote: post #2

There's a long list of comments in that thread discussing "why" it's the case, with most simply saying "it's difficult." I disagree. I think it's the same reason why so much of our software is poor quality: taking something from "works" to "works well" is a cost sink. It will cost you and yet doesn't add much to the bottom line to compensate. It's sad that my family uses the available Bluetooth devices less than if t…

My experience is that better quality Bluetooth headsets can handle being paired to multiple devices, cheaper ones will drive you crazy. I have these on my head right now at the office https://www.v-moda.com/us/en/products/crossfade2-wireless and I have a pair of these at home https://www.poly.com/us/en/products/headsets/voyager/voyager... I wound up getting these after having been deeply dissatisfied with Bluetooth h…

>> My experience is that better quality Bluetooth headsets can handle being paired to multiple devices, cheaper ones will drive you crazy. I have these on my head right now at the office

My experience as well-- just gonna put a little plug here in for the Jabra Elite bluetooth headset, that works really well for me.

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#109

Post by ROTMetro »

bee_rider wrote: post #82
zachallaun wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my favorite wireless devices is a Logitech gaming mouse (G903) that I use with a mousepad that is also a charging mat. It uses a low-latency proprietary wireless protocol: https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/innovation/lightspeed.html

Logitech's silly little plug-in receivers seem to be weirdly better than bluetooth, and they have been for as long as I remember. I don't really get why. If they have some magic technology in there, how has the Bluetooth SIG not managed to copy it?

You are telling me that a single purpose spec/software/hardware stack works better than a complicated multi use case/OS/hardware standard? Call me shocked.

My cordless phone in the 90s dropped less calls than my cell phone today, how have cell phone companies not managed to copy it?

Re: Ask HN: Bluetooth kinda sucks. Why don't we have something better?

#110

Post by googlryas »

xlii wrote: post #68
natch wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you are suggesting that the Bluetooth SIG did just a fine job with the technology, no problems there, and that people like Apple don't see fit to use the money in their budget to cough up a membership fee? Seeing as how it is Apple devices on which I often encounter pairing difficulties. Super convenient for the SIG that they can point fingers like this (I wonder if that's why they set it up as you describe, ugh)…

AFAIK it's not about Apple, but about other producers either polluting spectrum or plainly ignoring specs. There was a post about Logitech not creating a lot of interference with their MX products ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31939424 ). Interestingly enough getting rid of Logitech devices fixed most of the BT issues I had.

I have constant issues the single bluetooth device in myhouse - my Bose bluetooth QC-35s, and a google produced phone and google produced laptop which it connects to. Both of those groups should be able to get bluetooth right.
Post reply on HN