Live data from Hacker News

What went wrong with wireless USB

oldvcr.blogspot.com

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#32
Maybe the deeper problem with wireless USB was that “Wireless USB” is an appealing word salad rather than a solution a meaningful problem.

I mean a wireless USB hub would eliminate exactly one cable [1] and onboard wireless USB requires the same number of radios as WiFi. [2] But “Wireless USB” still sounds a kinda’ sexy answer to “What are you working on?” [3]

[1] Wirelessly eliminating one USB cable already had its critical solution in a mature dongle dependent wireless mouse market.

[2] For example WiFi printers were already a thing and fit into the evergreen problem of sharing printers and wireless USB wasn’t going to improve online experience.

[3] “Wireless USB” is a great sound bite. Short, sounds like the future, and people will feel like they know what it means. [4]

[4] The article reminded me that indeed at some point in the last five years (or maybe ten, these things run together) I thought “wireless USB would do that” and googling “wireless usb” because surely it must exist but of course it didn’t really and I probably bought a long cable off eBay. But I remember coming up with the thought and googling.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#33
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.

Bluetooth took off before wireless usb did and was allready useful to people when wusb came a long. It was also lower power so you could do peripherals that was smaller and longer lived.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inter…

The proprietary protocol can use absolute positions between device/dongle, and then the dongle can translate to relative positions at the edge, by returning the difference since the last poll

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#35
post #30

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).

Still there on android phones.

It's so terribly slow it's almost unusable, but does seem to be substantiality more power efficient than running a WiFi hotspot all the time.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#36

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.

You will as long as the protocol is designed to be power efficient.

I agree though that existing WiFi networks are hard to connect to from devices where battery life needs to be measured in months.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And requires more configuration! Sure let me just type a netmask into my headphones by tapping the volume buttons.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> allows far more possibilities.

>> attack surface, and give manufacturers access to way more information than I am comfortable with

When your device is on your WiFi you cannot be completely sure what it does (unless you monitor the traffic).

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This directly opposes design principles of secure and correct by construction.

If any of my colleagues would make an overly abstracted solution for a problem and ship it with a dsl to configure it, I would say no, and ask them to solve the problem at hand.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluetooth is bad enough that wireless mice/keyboards usually have a USB dongle receiving what I guess is a proprietary RF protocol. Some wireless headphones have that too. And wifi requires too much power.

I don't know why USB dongles are popular for manufacturers (I assume to make their product more plug-and-play friendly), but I don't think they are a better solution than bluetooth. For example, it is common that if another USB device is plugged close to a USB dongle, it can cause interference to it, which results to unstable connection and eg makes a mouse "jump", keystrokes not register etc. Finding the right place…

Bluetooth's latency is just too slow for a mouse. Heck, Bluetooth is too slow for audio, too, but most people seem to be complacent to latency.
Post reply on HN