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

What went wrong with wireless USB

oldvcr.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 219 posts

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#21

Post by numpad0 »

Findecanor wrote: post #17
numpad0 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluetooth isn't too bad, Logitech Bolt is based on BLE and it's just fine. Bigger problem is integration into x86/x86_64 platform.

Bluetooth mice use the HID protocol borrowed from USB, except with Bluetooth as carrier. But HID had not been designed for the possibility that packets could get lost: it sends movements as a relative vector since the previous packet. I don't know how Logi Bolt works, but Logitech has claimed that it should work better than BLE when the 2.4 GHz band is congested. Also that it would have better security than BLE.

I mean, you can't type in BitLocker password wirelessly without a dongle. Optical mice sensors aren't so repeatable anyway, so missing a packet or two probably aren't so critical.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#22

Post by explodes »

londons_explore wrote: post #14

Imo, at this point nobody should be designing any wireless protocol that doesn't support full IP networking. Sure, your Bluetooth headphones only 1:1 connect to your phone... But if they could connect directly to your WiFi router they could keep playing music when your phone goes out of range... Or you could connect them to two phones... Or you could connect them to your TV to get sound from that... Basically, IP net…

I don't want to have to expose any of my devices to the entire internet just to use them. Sure one can firewall and block things manually, but I would prefer things were secure by default.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#23

Post by freehorse »

Findecanor wrote: post #17
numpad0 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluetooth isn't too bad, Logitech Bolt is based on BLE and it's just fine. Bigger problem is integration into x86/x86_64 platform.

Bluetooth mice use the HID protocol borrowed from USB, except with Bluetooth as carrier. But HID had not been designed for the possibility that packets could get lost: it sends movements as a relative vector since the previous packet. I don't know how Logi Bolt works, but Logitech has claimed that it should work better than BLE when the 2.4 GHz band is congested. Also that it would have better security than BLE.

> But HID had not been designed for the possibility that packets could get lost

Doesn't the same problem exist for USB dongles with proprietary RF protocols?

Logi Bolt is a good solution. But ime most other USB dongles are terrible. I have had a lot of bad connection issues with such USB dongles, and never with similar bluetooth devices. USB dongles also use the same 2.4GHz band, and even more they are prone to interference from nearby active USB ports [0]. If you have ever had a "jumping" mouse while transfering big amounts of data through a port neighbouring your mouse's USB dongle, this is likely the reason.

[0] https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/327216.pdf

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#24

Post by dodslaser »

londons_explore wrote: post #14

Imo, at this point nobody should be designing any wireless protocol that doesn't support full IP networking. Sure, your Bluetooth headphones only 1:1 connect to your phone... But if they could connect directly to your WiFi router they could keep playing music when your phone goes out of range... Or you could connect them to two phones... Or you could connect them to your TV to get sound from that... Basically, IP net…

Please do not give me more devices that need to connect to my WiFi for basic functionality. These devices add congestion, attack surface, and give manufacturers access to way more information than I am comfortable with. I already have to fight my washing machine, stove, refrigerator, etc. on this.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#25

Post by londons_explore »

explodes wrote: post #22
londons_explore wrote: post #14

Imo, at this point nobody should be designing any wireless protocol that doesn't support full IP networking. Sure, your Bluetooth headphones only 1:1 connect to your phone... But if they could connect directly to your WiFi router they could keep playing music when your phone goes out of range... Or you could connect them to two phones... Or you could connect them to your TV to get sound from that... Basically, IP net…

I don't want to have to expose any of my devices to the entire internet just to use them. Sure one can firewall and block things manually, but I would prefer things were secure by default.

The protocol should allow it, even if the implementation perhaps limits users to the local network or some other more sensible security policy.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#26

Post by designerarvid »

nurettin wrote: post #15
variaga wrote: post #10

I worked on the design of wireless USB chips around 2008 - 2010. They worked - you really could get USB 2.0 full rate connections wirelessly and we had some neat demos. I would say the major problem it had with adoption was that wired USB also provided power . (A lot more people use usb to charge their phone than to sync their phone.) So great - wireless connectivity... but you still have to plug the device into a ca…

I don't see why Bluetooth took off and wusb didn't. It must have something to do with marketing.

Largest phone manufacturers of the time (Ericsson and Nokia) supporting and developing it surely helped.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#27

Post by _Algernon_ »

dodslaser wrote: post #24
londons_explore wrote: post #14

Imo, at this point nobody should be designing any wireless protocol that doesn't support full IP networking. Sure, your Bluetooth headphones only 1:1 connect to your phone... But if they could connect directly to your WiFi router they could keep playing music when your phone goes out of range... Or you could connect them to two phones... Or you could connect them to your TV to get sound from that... Basically, IP net…

Please do not give me more devices that need to connect to my WiFi for basic functionality. These devices add congestion, attack surface, and give manufacturers access to way more information than I am comfortable with. I already have to fight my washing machine, stove, refrigerator, etc. on this.

>Basically, IP networking still allows direct connections, but also allows far more possibilities.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#28

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

londons_explore wrote: post #14

Imo, at this point nobody should be designing any wireless protocol that doesn't support full IP networking. Sure, your Bluetooth headphones only 1:1 connect to your phone... But if they could connect directly to your WiFi router they could keep playing music when your phone goes out of range... Or you could connect them to two phones... Or you could connect them to your TV to get sound from that... Basically, IP net…

You're not going to get low power consumption with IP. That's a problem for small battery powered devices.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#29

Post by troupo »

kensai wrote: post #5

The standard of "wireless USB" was there, but probably as in any standards war, moved too slowly and had less to offer than competing standards. Are we not better off with Wifi and Bluetooth now? Btw, is there a direct comparison anywhere regarding energy consumption of the competing standards in real situations?

> Are we not better off with Wifi and Bluetooth now?

Bluetooth is a nightmare of a standard. Up until very recently even pairing two devices was a non-deterministic operation. Apple went as far as creating their own chip with their own protocol for their headphones just not to have to deal with bluetooth.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#30

Post by fulafel »

londons_explore wrote: post #14

Imo, at this point nobody should be designing any wireless protocol that doesn't support full IP networking. Sure, your Bluetooth headphones only 1:1 connect to your phone... But if they could connect directly to your WiFi router they could keep playing music when your phone goes out of range... Or you could connect them to two phones... Or you could connect them to your TV to get sound from that... Basically, IP net…

Bluetooth had networking already in the early days (PAN).
Post reply on HN