Isn't it time for uncompressed A2DP audio at last? It would solve both quality (generation loss) and latency issues.
but you cant milk for patents if its just a raw audio stream!
Bluetooth 5
31–40 of 68 posts
Re: Bluetooth 5
#32What will it take for wireless keyboards and mice to use Bluetooth? Most ship with their own custom dongle. A single port MacBook, for example, doesn't really make sense until Bluetooth devices become more popular.
bluetooth hid profile requires a software stack rivalling IPv4 in complexity. Legacy Bluetooth is really bad for anything other than BT hardware manufacturers profits. LE simplified everything and made things bearable again, no more encapsulation 4 layers deep just to send 5 bytes.
Re: Bluetooth 5
#33What will it take for wireless keyboards and mice to use Bluetooth? Most ship with their own custom dongle. A single port MacBook, for example, doesn't really make sense until Bluetooth devices become more popular.
The problem with Bluetooth for peripherals is that they on PCs, the pairing happens in user space so they're useless when you need to adjust the BIOS settings or select a different operating system from GRUB.
Re: Bluetooth 5
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
aptX already allows high-quality audio streaming over BT and has both a lossless and a low-latency mode. Device support is also already here, I saw a few last time I was in an electronics store.
Do you know of any free software implementations of it?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2531440
reusing proprietary library is as close as you can get without paying Qualcomm tax
Re: Bluetooth 5
#35What will it take for wireless keyboards and mice to use Bluetooth? Most ship with their own custom dongle. A single port MacBook, for example, doesn't really make sense until Bluetooth devices become more popular.
There are some decent options for bluetooth mice at least. I'm using a Microsoft Sculpt Comfort Mouse[1] with my Macbook Air, and the thumb swipe gesture works well for switching spaces. It's something of a poor man's Magic Mouse for those of us who rely on having a middle mouse button.
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/accessories/en-us/products/mice/sc... ($20 on Amazon)
Re: Bluetooth 5
#36What will it take for wireless keyboards and mice to use Bluetooth? Most ship with their own custom dongle. A single port MacBook, for example, doesn't really make sense until Bluetooth devices become more popular.
Apple's accessories are already bluetooth. I'm working with a magic trackpad 2 here and it skips all the time, as expected. Magic trackpad 1 did the same. So did my previous kinesis bluetooth keyboard. So does audio. Oh right, it's OS X that can't handle bluetooth. Or RF in the case of Logitech products. Hell, they have trouble keeping wifi on. What you wish for is already here and it's already shitty, at least on OS X.
Re: Bluetooth 5
#37Yay, even better opportunities for government and corporations to track my whereabouts through my Bluetooth signature. ;) Tongue-in-cheek, well mostly but not entirely .. I do appreciate e.g. accurate travel times, yet refuse to believe they won't take it to the next step. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/how-vicroads-tracks-your-e...
Modern Bluetooth devices, including all smart phones running Windows, iOS or Android, does not use static addresses that can be used as a signature to track you.
Instead, they use private resolvable keys for all handshakes with devices around them. A new key is generated every few minutes, and only a device which you have previously bonded with is able to resolve your key through data exchanged in the bonding process.
Re: Bluetooth 5
#38Announced a week before the Apple event. I wonder....
Re: Bluetooth 5
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also terrible that people, and their clothing, are so detectable in the visible light spectrum. I wasn't completely clear above, but there are a couple of differences: - Your clothing doesn't contain unique identifiers (yet!) :) - The devices seem to often be happy to broadcast their information in the clear. Your clothes don't advertise your position or heart rate to the whole world either!
Your clothing doesn't contain unique identifiers But your face does...
Which requires a camera being pointed at you, whereas bluetooth isn't based on line-of-sight.
Re: Bluetooth 5
#40I've been really fascinated recently by whipping out my smartphone in public and using a Bluetooth LE explorer app to look at what's being advertised, and it's brilliant. We are all constantly surrounded by devices which are screaming data about themselves everywhere they go. Bluetooth 5 seems to increase the range of LE communications, but since I'm almost sure we're going to have some horrible public hack of one of…
> We are all constantly surrounded by devices which are screaming data about themselves everywhere they go. It's also terrible that people, and their clothing, are so detectable in the visible light spectrum. Where's the 'tarnkappe' when you need it? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloak_of_invisibility ) Also appreciate the "will be marketed as 'Bluetooth 5.' [no dot zero]". Sounds like a band name, or a gang. Good…
And ubiquitous public surveillance is just as troublesome. Even more so with face/movement pattern recognition or paired with other information such as MAC broadcasting.