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

111–120 of 165 posts

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

#111

Post by lotsofpulp »

pwinnski wrote: post #10

Most of the problems seem to be poor implementations, because what's the motivation for, say, a car company to get Bluetooth exactly right? How many people buy cars based on the speed with which Bluetooth connects? As evidence, sticking with a single vendor means I don't have weird stuff happen, and can in fact connect multiple pairs of AirPods to a single Apple TV unit so my partner and I can watch together in outwa…

>How many people buy cars based on the speed with which Bluetooth connects?

I would not rank Bluetooth itself as being high on the list of wants for a car, but I would rank quality wireless Carplay / Android Auto functionality pretty high (along with a wireless charging mount). If it is possible, but I have not seen that it is yet. Until then, wired CarPlay / Android Auto works fine. And lack of CarPlay / Android Auto is a dealbreaker.

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

#112

Post by The_Colonel »

Jenk wrote: post #12

Why did Betamax lose out to VHS? Why did MiniDisc never take off? Why does the internet still rely on JavaScript? From my sideline perspective it's probably because Bluetooth was developed without knowing how successful and expansive its use would become. It was developed by mobile phone companies to connect wireless earpieces to mobile telephones, and that was it. The entire scope of the product that is Bluetooth. T…

> It has since been used for many things that it just wasn't engineered to do.

I don't buy this line of reasoning.

Bluetooth is at version 5.3, it's not stuck at specification from 1998. The original revision might have been designed for only a few use cases, but later revisions added support for a lot of new things (e.g. multipoint) and I wouldn't be surprised if the protocol has been (several times) completely rearchitected to better support the new reality.

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

#113

Post by stinkledinkle »

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…

I think this hits the nail on the head. A device developer will develop a bluetooth gadget. They test it, it works, but they know it's not great. But they know that when a consumer buys it, none of that matters as long as they buy the product and don't return it.

So the trick is to make sure you have a nice feature set which works well enough so that you can gaslight consumers into thinking the failure is their fault. So if it only works half the time, that's fine. Just tell them to turn their bluetooth off and on or to reboot their device. It'll probably fix it and now they think they are at fault.

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

#114

Post by curioussavage »

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…

I listen to my phone/AirPods daily over Wi-Fi and cellular and walk up to 3 floors away from the phone to my basement with barely a stutter.

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

#116

Post by mixmastamyk »

colinmhayes wrote: post #76
mixmastamyk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tuck the cable inside the shirt, and most of these aren't issues. Quality excellent. Also don't have to worry about earbuds falling off to be run over, or falling in a storm drain. Sounds unlikely but my keys just narrowly missed this on a recent bike ride.

People say this, I don't find it to be true. I still got the cable stuck on door handles all the time when it was tucked into my shirt, because finding the perfect cable length is impossible. Either way, the main problem remains; I want to be to move around a room with my headphones but without my phone/computer. That requires wireless.

Never happened, three feet is perfect for head to waist pocket. With cable inside shirt it is impossible for this to happen, perhaps you did it differently.

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

#117

Post by jhbadger »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #116
colinmhayes wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this, I don't find it to be true. I still got the cable stuck on door handles all the time when it was tucked into my shirt, because finding the perfect cable length is impossible. Either way, the main problem remains; I want to be to move around a room with my headphones but without my phone/computer. That requires wireless.

Never happened, three feet is perfect for head to waist pocket. With cable inside shirt it is impossible for this to happen, perhaps you did it differently.

People are different heights, and it isn't only differences in leg length. Maybe for you three feet is the perfect length for head to waist, but that's not universal.

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

#118

Post by solardev »

ikeboy wrote: post #104
JLCarveth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Heh, that was the same issue that made me give up on desktop Linux (though with the XM3) and go back to Windows/Mac... three years ago.

It's just never going to get priority because it doesn't have the marketshare. Sony doesn't care about Linux and Canonical doesn't care about Sony.

If I were you, I'd consider an external bluetooth adapter that supports A2DP and connects to the 3.5mm plug on your computer, like this one: https://aluratek.com/universal-bluetooth-optical-audio-recei...

Look for AptX low-latency support too if you care about audio lag (for movies or games).

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

#119

Post by solardev »

googlryas wrote: post #110
xlii wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't even get my Airpods to work consistently with my iPad, or Pixel Buds to work consistently with my Pixel phone. And it gets exponentially worse if you try to connect to more than one device at a time, across vendors or even chipsets. Bluetooth is a hopeless mess.

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

#120

Post by lupire »

blibble wrote: post #89
systemvoltage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with USB consortium. Gotta pay like $10k to get a USB vendor ID. What the fuck were these people thinking to rally up behind this draconian standard? There is a limit to how many vendors they can have, iirc 10k. But for all the issues with it, usb seems to work on devices without Bluetooth-like issues. Standards should be open and free for common public and only have to pay once you reach certain company size. T…

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

Can you sublet a vendor id, like a taxi medallion?
Post reply on HN