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

21–30 of 165 posts

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

#21

Post by thematrixturtle »

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…

I worked in telco in the early 2000s when Bluetooth hype was at its peak, and that's just not true: if anything, Bluetooth was hailed as the Next Big Thing because it would enable "Personal Area Networks" (PAN), a now all-but-forgotten buzzword. But don't take my word for it, here's the IEEE in 1999:

Examples of applications include Collaborative Maintenance, Mobile Worker, Medical Sensing, Data Synchronization, etc. Examples of devices, which can be networked, include Computers, PDA/HPCs, printers, microphones, speakers, bar code readers, sensors, displays, Pagers, and Cellular & PCS Phones.

https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/par/5C.html

Funnily enough, it's the very last thing they mentioned, cellular phones, that ended up being the primary user!

Pedantic note: IEEE 802.15 was a grab-bag of various PAN proposals, with Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15.1) really the only one to go mainstream, although low-rate networks (802.15.4) like ZigBee were eventually adopted in the IoT world as well.

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

#22

Post by zemo »

duped wrote: post #17

Have you ever bought a product because "the Bluetooth integration is so good?" I'm sure a few people have. But it's not like you choose a car or phone because of it.

I bought a stereo receiver because it has bluetooth up and down and I preferred that to the proprietary protocol used by Sonos. I actually bought a Sonos first and returned it because I hated it so much. The latency makes it completely unusable for half of the desired applications though. So … not “so good” but “the one thing with Bluetooth that I found at the time”.

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

#23

Post by causi »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #21
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…

I worked in telco in the early 2000s when Bluetooth hype was at its peak, and that's just not true: if anything, Bluetooth was hailed as the Next Big Thing because it would enable "Personal Area Networks" (PAN), a now all-but-forgotten buzzword. But don't take my word for it, here's the IEEE in 1999: Examples of applications include Collaborative Maintenance, Mobile Worker, Medical Sensing, Data Synchronization, etc.…

Indeed. I well remember spending $150 for a ThinkOutside folding bluetooth keyboard and mouse for my PDA in 2005 and thinking it was the coolest thing ever. Shame you can't get a modern folding keyboard with that build quality.

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

#24

Post by jrmg »

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…

The reason (or a reason, at least) we have poor implementations, though, is that the protocol stack is so incredibly complicated.

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

#25

Post by david927 »

duped wrote: post #17

Have you ever bought a product because "the Bluetooth integration is so good?" I'm sure a few people have. But it's not like you choose a car or phone because of it.

That was my argument above. It's something Adam Smith didn't realize: Capitalism optimizes to discomfort.

Over the decades, airlines have found more ways to put more seats in the same space, more ways to optimize a full plane even if it means more people are bumped, etc. They've made more money but it has also made flying a much poorer experience. Not patently horrible, but not comfortable either.

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

#26

Post by zemo »

it’s just so device-specific. My JBL speaker, aftershokz bone conducting headphones, and iPhone all play nicely and I don’t have any problems. My Windows machines consistently have problems with bluetooth, but poor quality is a standard of the Windows experience so it doesn’t surprise me. My Sony stereo receiver is always a nightmare to pair.

Honestly the JBL Charge speaker has the best and simplest solution to this: it just lets two devices pair to it simultaneously.

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

#27

Post by mikestew »

causi wrote: post #23
thematrixturtle wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in telco in the early 2000s when Bluetooth hype was at its peak, and that's just not true: if anything, Bluetooth was hailed as the Next Big Thing because it would enable "Personal Area Networks" (PAN), a now all-but-forgotten buzzword. But don't take my word for it, here's the IEEE in 1999: Examples of applications include Collaborative Maintenance, Mobile Worker, Medical Sensing, Data Synchronization, etc.…

Indeed. I well remember spending $150 for a ThinkOutside folding bluetooth keyboard and mouse for my PDA in 2005 and thinking it was the coolest thing ever. Shame you can't get a modern folding keyboard with that build quality.

I might even still have my ThinkOutside lying around somewhere, but the keys were getting a bit sticky for some reason. There is something about that market that I'm obviously missing, because I'm astounded that no one has cloned the thing. Though I don't have the use case for one that I used to, I'd still spend the money again. It is such a cool little device, I'd find something to do with it.

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

#28

Post by amelius »

duped wrote: post #17

Have you ever bought a product because "the Bluetooth integration is so good?" I'm sure a few people have. But it's not like you choose a car or phone because of it.

Perhaps certification is the solution then. You can't sell Bluetooth unless it's been certified.

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

#29

Post by carrychains »

giantg2 wrote: post #19

Are any of these problems actually Bluetooth problems? It seems the data protocol works just fine. It appears to me that the various devices just handle the associated tasks poorly. Eg you could take a call on your phone while playing music on your computer, if your phone had the functionality to send the music via Bluetooth and keep the phone conversation separate.

Exactly. At this point, it's not the protocol. It's devices with shitty implementations of the protocol.

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

#30

Post by CivBase »

duped wrote: post #17

Have you ever bought a product because "the Bluetooth integration is so good?" I'm sure a few people have. But it's not like you choose a car or phone because of it.

When was the last time you saw a review that audited the Bluetooth implementation on a device? I couldn't even make that kind of purchasing decision if I wanted to.
Post reply on HN