Bluetooth 5 will quadruple the range, double the speed(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Bluetooth 5 will quadruple the range, double the speed
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/16/bluetooth-5/
249 comments
I used the Bluetooth Audio in my new car for about two weeks.
It was actually pretty reliable, and felt like the future. I'd get in, turn the car on, my phone would pair itself and pick up where it left off, and I never once had to take it or my keys out of my pocket. Then I started to actually listen to my music.
The audio over bluetooth was frequently out of tune. I'm a musician, so I can definitely hear this and it's infuriating. VLC on Windows had the same problem for years and everyone told me I was crazy, but the car was at least twice as bad. It sounded like an old cassette player, if anyone remembers those. Googling reveals this to be a common issue with many different varieties of bluetooth speaker. I can only imagine it's doing some sort of time stretching to "hide" latency in the packets but, well, it's not hiding it well enough for my ears. Trying to listen to anything melodic, especially piano pieces, was just awful.
Fortunately, I discovered that my car also has a shockingly excellent USB Audio implementation, so I copied the Music from my phone onto a large USB drive and have been happy ever since. More wires for me please, the future isn't ready.
It was actually pretty reliable, and felt like the future. I'd get in, turn the car on, my phone would pair itself and pick up where it left off, and I never once had to take it or my keys out of my pocket. Then I started to actually listen to my music.
The audio over bluetooth was frequently out of tune. I'm a musician, so I can definitely hear this and it's infuriating. VLC on Windows had the same problem for years and everyone told me I was crazy, but the car was at least twice as bad. It sounded like an old cassette player, if anyone remembers those. Googling reveals this to be a common issue with many different varieties of bluetooth speaker. I can only imagine it's doing some sort of time stretching to "hide" latency in the packets but, well, it's not hiding it well enough for my ears. Trying to listen to anything melodic, especially piano pieces, was just awful.
Fortunately, I discovered that my car also has a shockingly excellent USB Audio implementation, so I copied the Music from my phone onto a large USB drive and have been happy ever since. More wires for me please, the future isn't ready.
You need bluetooth with AptX audio codec support. Most phones have it, but most cars don't (because cars are lagging with technology). I'm using separate bluetooth dongle powered from the lighter socket and plugged into car RCA port and my music sounds good now.
Your phone may already be able to do it on its own: get an OTG adapter for your phone (usually MicroUSB male to USB A female) and plug a USB cable in and use your phone directly.
Alas, my phone is running a newer version of Android, and does the Media Protocol thing instead of doing Mass Storage. I usually don't expect to be able to access its files in a sane manner over USB; it's hit or miss.
Instead, I use Syncthing, so my files are synced properly between the phone and my computer using my wireless network, no cables needed. I just copy the same folder to my USB drive periodically and don't need to mess with it beyond that. (In a pinch, I suppose I could use the OTG cable to update the USB drive using my phone.) I like being able to have the drive plugged into the car at all times, as it's one less thing to fiddle with when getting in and out.
If I'm going to plug a wire into my phone for my car, I'd much rather just use the standard AUX (3.5mm headphone jack) port that's built in, as it's simpler and more reliable. I still do this from time to time if I feel like using Youtube, Google Play, or another streaming based service, or if I need to hear something on my phone (like Navigation).
Instead, I use Syncthing, so my files are synced properly between the phone and my computer using my wireless network, no cables needed. I just copy the same folder to my USB drive periodically and don't need to mess with it beyond that. (In a pinch, I suppose I could use the OTG cable to update the USB drive using my phone.) I like being able to have the drive plugged into the car at all times, as it's one less thing to fiddle with when getting in and out.
If I'm going to plug a wire into my phone for my car, I'd much rather just use the standard AUX (3.5mm headphone jack) port that's built in, as it's simpler and more reliable. I still do this from time to time if I feel like using Youtube, Google Play, or another streaming based service, or if I need to hear something on my phone (like Navigation).
>The audio over bluetooth was frequently out of tune.
I agree. I have a Ford, and the interface is as good as any I've experienced with respect to Bluetooth enabled vehicles. But there's a definite drop in "sound quality" compared to USB based devices or CDs. I only ever use it when we're bored of what we've brought and want to stream Google Play.
I agree. I have a Ford, and the interface is as good as any I've experienced with respect to Bluetooth enabled vehicles. But there's a definite drop in "sound quality" compared to USB based devices or CDs. I only ever use it when we're bored of what we've brought and want to stream Google Play.
There's an assortment of codecs that can be used by the Bluetooth A2DP stack, the protocol is extensible but the only required codec is SBC. Apple supports AAC and Samsung backs APTX so that doesn't help. You usually end up with the lowest common denominator.
I've tried out a number of in-car bluetooth setups over the years and I've found that the quality varies pretty significantly between both auto makers and aftermarket units. Ford and Toyota are pretty solid where as Chrysler and Honda are pretty awful. As far as aftermarket solutions go, GROM is decent and USA SPEC is horrid steaming crap.
Another unfortunate occurrence I encountered was that Android paired with certain systems (Honda) will prefer to stream audio over the HSP/HFP stacks instead of A2DP or will switch when a call is incoming and stick. This is tons of fun because HSP/HFP use very low quality codecs meant tuned for voice applications.
Now that Bluetooth is high bandwidth, I would like to see them add a new audio streaming stack that just accepted PCM/FLAC/AAC/MP3/OGG in all their glory.
I've tried out a number of in-car bluetooth setups over the years and I've found that the quality varies pretty significantly between both auto makers and aftermarket units. Ford and Toyota are pretty solid where as Chrysler and Honda are pretty awful. As far as aftermarket solutions go, GROM is decent and USA SPEC is horrid steaming crap.
Another unfortunate occurrence I encountered was that Android paired with certain systems (Honda) will prefer to stream audio over the HSP/HFP stacks instead of A2DP or will switch when a call is incoming and stick. This is tons of fun because HSP/HFP use very low quality codecs meant tuned for voice applications.
Now that Bluetooth is high bandwidth, I would like to see them add a new audio streaming stack that just accepted PCM/FLAC/AAC/MP3/OGG in all their glory.
I'm so glad this is the top comment, and matches my experience 100%. If a product brags about its Bluetooth support, I immediately start losing trust in it. So many devices have such bad UX for pairing too, so I can't even get any communication about what I'm doing wrong. I think BT-enabled cars are the worst offender here. Some of them don't even provide obvious alternatives to the voice menu.
The only positive bluetooth experience I've had lately was playing the mobile game Spaceteam. Why is a 6-year-old free app the only example that comes to mind? My 1st-gen Pebble is still okay-ish; it does frequently disconnect but it usually manages to reconnect without intervention or disrupting itself.
(This rant bookends nicely into talking about how shitty smart TVs are too, but I'll try to restrain myself.)
The only positive bluetooth experience I've had lately was playing the mobile game Spaceteam. Why is a 6-year-old free app the only example that comes to mind? My 1st-gen Pebble is still okay-ish; it does frequently disconnect but it usually manages to reconnect without intervention or disrupting itself.
(This rant bookends nicely into talking about how shitty smart TVs are too, but I'll try to restrain myself.)
> If a product brags about its Bluetooth support, I immediately start losing trust in it
Unfortunately, there aren't viable wireless connectivity alternatives for commercial products other than Wi-Fi for long range and Bluetooth for short range. And both suffer from high (and rising) interference levels in the ISM bands.
Unfortunately, there aren't viable wireless connectivity alternatives for commercial products other than Wi-Fi for long range and Bluetooth for short range. And both suffer from high (and rising) interference levels in the ISM bands.
Wifi direct had the potential to be a Bluetooth alternative, but they skipped out on defining "profiles" for common use cases.
With Bluetooth you have a list of profiles that define protocols for various use cases.
A car head unit is likely using A2DP and AVRCP to handle the streaming and playback controls respectively. It may also implement HFP to allow it to act as a handsfree.
Wifi direct do not even, last i checked, have a defined protocol for transferring files between devices. This while Bluetooth supports OBEX, that allows you to either push individual files, or browse the storage of a device remotely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles
Thats the list of Bluetooth profiles at present.
With Bluetooth you have a list of profiles that define protocols for various use cases.
A car head unit is likely using A2DP and AVRCP to handle the streaming and playback controls respectively. It may also implement HFP to allow it to act as a handsfree.
Wifi direct do not even, last i checked, have a defined protocol for transferring files between devices. This while Bluetooth supports OBEX, that allows you to either push individual files, or browse the storage of a device remotely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles
Thats the list of Bluetooth profiles at present.
Doesn't Spaceteam use Wifi, rather than Bluetooth?
Spaceteam can do either, but Wi-Fi is cross platform. IIRC Bluetooth was too locked down to support across iOS/Android.
My first generation (non-Time, non-Steel) Pebble has refused to connect to my iPhone 6S since the day I got the new phone. Pebble doesn't seem able to help, the official answer I got was "use the old app" which won't pair to a watch with the Time firmware that their app upgraded mine to. Pairs just fine with my iPhone 5S that I use for work.
The damn thing has been sitting on my desk for months and I don't even know where the charger went. You'd think if your whole hardware experience is based around Bluetooth, you'd be able to iron out the rough edges.
The damn thing has been sitting on my desk for months and I don't even know where the charger went. You'd think if your whole hardware experience is based around Bluetooth, you'd be able to iron out the rough edges.
In my experience, after my Bluetooth devices are paired, they seem to be rock solid. (I know - YMMV, "works on my machine", etc.)
Where things have gotten the messiest for me is when you connect multiple devices and the system has to make arbitrary decisions - e.g. when my wife and I are both in the car, whose phone should the car sync with? These are design decisions for which there is no exact answer.
Where things have gotten the messiest for me is when you connect multiple devices and the system has to make arbitrary decisions - e.g. when my wife and I are both in the car, whose phone should the car sync with? These are design decisions for which there is no exact answer.
Logitech has a lovely solution for that on one of their more recent keyboards. A big fat knob that you rotate to pick between pairings.
https://secure.logitech.com/en-us/product/multi-device-keybo...
https://secure.logitech.com/en-us/product/multi-device-keybo...
That's not my experience at all. My Magic keyboard and mouse work fine. I've used them with my Mac mini and my Macbook without any problems. They paired without any trouble. Pairing my phone with my car was a pain, but I've got an after-market Bluetooth adapter so you have to press the 3 button on the radio or something to pair the first time. After that it just worked.
That's weird, I have a Pebble and the bluetooth is absolutely solid, even across my house.
I've never had a good experience with desktops and bluetooth devices however.
I wonder why drivers are so much better on mobile?
I've never had a good experience with desktops and bluetooth devices however.
I wonder why drivers are so much better on mobile?
My bluetooth mouse, my android wear watch, and my wireless headphones all work fine with my computer, and phone. So I share the same thing as you were I see no issues with bluetooth. Even my car does bluetooth without any problems. It sounds like OP is experiencing driver issues rather than specific device issues.
I have similar experiences. Bluetooth headphones on the phone have never been an issue, but the same devices become unreliable when paired with a PC.
Funny enough, my Bluetooth headphones (LG Tone something or other) has been rock solid, the only Bluetooth device I can reliably trust. My mouse, my keyboard, my Pebble, my literally everything else Bluetooth, all have failed me. My Bluetooth headset is the only thing I've never had a problem with on mobile or desktop.
I've had similar experiences to OPs with older Bluetooth mice and keyboards, so I was reluctant to try the Logitech MX Master. The only reason I did was because it offered the optional Unifying receiver. Well, I haven't used that receiver yet, because the Bluetooth was very easy to pair, and I haven't had a single connection issue (delay or otherwise) yet. This thing has restored my faith in Bluetooth devices, when done right.
Good to see not just Apple users and with that may be as many chipsets out there that some work better with others as is the case of any communications device and that said. Like to like chipsets would generaly be betetr, which is what you would expect from Apple, though again they diversify on chips so again moots that you have verbatim chipsets in part.
Me I've been lucky, though not a heavy BT user, so that may be the crux. This and then you have other things like wifi and interference from many things that could curtail signal
But for a keyboard right next to a device I would expect that to be less of an issue.
So with drivers and chipset variations, and quick google shows, can be some fun and games. But true of any digital communication device, will always be not perfect.
But in general I wonder if those who have had issues, have seen them get worse over time with BT or better? I know people who have had issues and a later driver fixes that issue, even instability ones outlined.
Me I've been lucky, though not a heavy BT user, so that may be the crux. This and then you have other things like wifi and interference from many things that could curtail signal
But for a keyboard right next to a device I would expect that to be less of an issue.
So with drivers and chipset variations, and quick google shows, can be some fun and games. But true of any digital communication device, will always be not perfect.
But in general I wonder if those who have had issues, have seen them get worse over time with BT or better? I know people who have had issues and a later driver fixes that issue, even instability ones outlined.
I used to be in this camp. My Jawbone Big Jambox would never pair, never stay connected, the whole deal. But I then replaced it with a Marshall bluetooth speaker and it's just a dream. It connects immediately, on the first try, every time. It never disconnects. If it hasn't received audio in a while, it goes to sleep. Press the "wake" button and it immediately connects again.
I used to loathe bluetooth, but now I'm wondering if it's shoddy implementations that are to blame?
I used to loathe bluetooth, but now I'm wondering if it's shoddy implementations that are to blame?
The Amazon Echo is kinda the same way. I paired to my phone once, and rarely use, so I often have to go to the Bluetooth settings on my iPhone and tap the Echo to connect, but every time I do, it works flawlessly.
I'm convinced shoddy implementations are to blame. I have two examples, both anecdote. First, watches. I've had every Pebble since I pledged the original Kickstarter. I've hooked various Pebble's to various iPhones. The connection to this day is flakey as hell. If I feel the watch buzz, indicating that I've walked away from my phone, there's a 50% chance that I'll be doing the Bluetooth Pairing Watuzi Dance to get it to pair again. Such is the way of things, eh?
Except the Garmin Fenix I bought a month ago has been rock...m'f'ing...solid. I walk away from phone, watch buzzes, walk back, watch buzzes and says it's connected again. Every time. I pull up the Garmin app, it's always connected. In a month of heavy usage, it has NEVER failed to reconnect or stay connected to the phone. Always get my notifications. Couldn't begin to say what the difference is, but someone appears to be doing it right and someone else: meh, not so much.
I don't know what others are doing wrong, but I basically reimplemented Apple's Core Bluetooth for a hardware piece that allowed old iPhones (4 or less, IIRC) to pretend they had BTLE, and consequentially pretend they supported Core Bluetooth. We tested heavily, never had issues, sold it to users, and I don't recall support issues with connectivity (I'm sure someone had an issue, but not enough that it was ever brought to our attention). I believe the devices sold like dog poop sandwiches, but it was for a company large enough that they probably sold more of their devices than Pebble has sold, so I would think we'd have heard about it if there were issues. But if I did anything "right", I couldn't tell you what it was, as I just followed the specs as best I could.
In summary, it would appear that it's possible to get devices to reliably connect and stay connected, but I don't know what the secret is.
Except the Garmin Fenix I bought a month ago has been rock...m'f'ing...solid. I walk away from phone, watch buzzes, walk back, watch buzzes and says it's connected again. Every time. I pull up the Garmin app, it's always connected. In a month of heavy usage, it has NEVER failed to reconnect or stay connected to the phone. Always get my notifications. Couldn't begin to say what the difference is, but someone appears to be doing it right and someone else: meh, not so much.
I don't know what others are doing wrong, but I basically reimplemented Apple's Core Bluetooth for a hardware piece that allowed old iPhones (4 or less, IIRC) to pretend they had BTLE, and consequentially pretend they supported Core Bluetooth. We tested heavily, never had issues, sold it to users, and I don't recall support issues with connectivity (I'm sure someone had an issue, but not enough that it was ever brought to our attention). I believe the devices sold like dog poop sandwiches, but it was for a company large enough that they probably sold more of their devices than Pebble has sold, so I would think we'd have heard about it if there were issues. But if I did anything "right", I couldn't tell you what it was, as I just followed the specs as best I could.
In summary, it would appear that it's possible to get devices to reliably connect and stay connected, but I don't know what the secret is.
Just an aside: if you have Full Keyboard Access turned on (in System Preferences, Keyboard, Shortcuts) then the Bluetooth prefpane is fairly usable with just the keyboard. You can use Spotlight to open it, then tab between the controls and activate them with the space bar. You can toggle it on and off this way, and even remove devices. You may also be able to navigate the Bluetooth Setup Assistant to re-pair, but I didn't take it that far.
If you prefer wires, the new trackpad will work as a wired device as well if you just leave it plugged in. For some incomprehensible reason, Apple placed the Lightning port on the bottom of the new mouse so that one can't be used wired, but they weren't so catastrophically stupid with the trackpad.
If you prefer wires, the new trackpad will work as a wired device as well if you just leave it plugged in. For some incomprehensible reason, Apple placed the Lightning port on the bottom of the new mouse so that one can't be used wired, but they weren't so catastrophically stupid with the trackpad.
I can also recommend Shortcat (https://shortcatapp.com) for these and other cases!
I couldn't agree more. I have never used a Bluetooth device that didn't have connection issues at least daily. And that's not even taking into account the madness of pairing a device with multiple other devices (e.g. phone & PC) or the fact that you can't use USB and Bluetooth at the same time, because USB3 jams the 2.4GHz frequency. If USB and Bluetooth are going to be mutually exclusive, I know which one I'm going to pick. (But that doesn't mean that making USB3 jam 2.4GHz WiFi & BT wasn't an idiotic design choice, so much so that I wonder if it wasn't an intentional attempt at killing competition.)
Do you mean wireless USB3 (is that a thing?), or that the USB3 copper cables leak that much interference?
Apparently USB3 host implementations cause problem in some early first generation products that also internally implement Wifi and BT.
As in, they are not internally shielding the two from each other. This is largely a problem on Apple products due to their "creative" way of designing hardware internally, but not limited to Apple only.
As in, they are not internally shielding the two from each other. This is largely a problem on Apple products due to their "creative" way of designing hardware internally, but not limited to Apple only.
The latter. I'm not sure if it's the cables or the circuitry in the devices, but most of my USB3 devices emit enough 2.4GHz noise when plugged in to prevent Bluetooth or WiFi from working with at least a few feet from the device. (5GHz WiFi is unaffected, of course)
I'm pretty sure the crappyness you're experiencing is software related.
I've got a lot of tech, bt stuff everywhere and the ones that work the best have the best switching software.
one of the most solid pieces of bt management software is in the Samsung necklace headphones.
these things flawlessly switch between devices, rarely ever skip much less drop a signal.
they're now about 30 bucks, crappy physical design makes them too uncomfortable sadly.
compare with a set of headphones with supposed latency software built in, avantree makes a set of these headphones.
avantree couldn't code themselves out of a wet paper bag, so they ruined a perfectly great pair of headphones because they hired some random company who doesn't know bt programming and so those headphones are great for about 15 minutes and then memory leak or something and they start sucking like all the other bt devices with crappy software.
IMO bt sucks because people can't code and there isn't a OSS client software bt solution that fixes it, so far. and getting Samsung to hook it up with their headphone code base is probably not gonna happen.
I've got a lot of tech, bt stuff everywhere and the ones that work the best have the best switching software.
one of the most solid pieces of bt management software is in the Samsung necklace headphones.
these things flawlessly switch between devices, rarely ever skip much less drop a signal.
they're now about 30 bucks, crappy physical design makes them too uncomfortable sadly.
compare with a set of headphones with supposed latency software built in, avantree makes a set of these headphones.
avantree couldn't code themselves out of a wet paper bag, so they ruined a perfectly great pair of headphones because they hired some random company who doesn't know bt programming and so those headphones are great for about 15 minutes and then memory leak or something and they start sucking like all the other bt devices with crappy software.
IMO bt sucks because people can't code and there isn't a OSS client software bt solution that fixes it, so far. and getting Samsung to hook it up with their headphone code base is probably not gonna happen.
I can't up vote you enough. I don't even want Bluetooth to improve anymore. I have given them enough time and energy as well as money for them to improve. All Bluetooth SIG provided was disappointment, frustration, one after another.
I want something to completely replace it. Hopefully coming from WiFi 802.11. Sadly I am not aware of anything coming.
I want something to completely replace it. Hopefully coming from WiFi 802.11. Sadly I am not aware of anything coming.
Good point! I've been having similar experiences pairing my phone (6s) with my dad's brand new Honda CRV. Takes a minute of sitting and pressing buttons after every stop to get it to resume the pairing. The car is equipped with a computer that auto steers within the lane but still can't get this to work instantly
I ran into connection problems with any Bluetooth devices I have used.Currently I have fitbit which has all sorts of connectivity and syncing issues with Bluetooth both with windows phone and android. Previously I had Nokia Bluetooth headset which dropped connections from time to time again with Android or windows phones I tested.Before that I had an expensive Bluetooth wireless mouse from Microsoft which had issues with multiple laptops I tested.It cant be driver issues every time.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I would have never known Bluetooth was anything less than a dream. I've apparently been very fortunate.
While I definitely still have issues with Bluetooth keyboards and mice, I have three pairs of bluetooth headphones (two of which are BT4, one is BT3) and they work great.
The only real problem is switching between devices is still much more annoying than it should be (I ought to be able to just select the device from the drop-down on the desired device).
The only real problem is switching between devices is still much more annoying than it should be (I ought to be able to just select the device from the drop-down on the desired device).
"Bluetooth 5 Promises an End to Pairing
The power of Bluetooth is set to explode when the next version of the wireless technology is released at the turn of the year. Bluetooth 5 will offer eight times the broadcasting capacity, have four times the range, and run twice as fast as current Bluetooth technology, the organization responsible for development of Bluetooth announced on Thursday. The increased broadcasting capacity could pave the way for the introduction of "connectionless" data transfers, meaning that the need to pair a Bluetooth device like a headset or wireless keyboard with a mobile app or computer program may become a thing of the past. Longer range means that it will be possible to use Bluetooth devices throughout the home, and higher speeds will make these devices more responsive."
http://ccm.net/news/27500-bluetooth-5-promises-an-end-to-pai...
The power of Bluetooth is set to explode when the next version of the wireless technology is released at the turn of the year. Bluetooth 5 will offer eight times the broadcasting capacity, have four times the range, and run twice as fast as current Bluetooth technology, the organization responsible for development of Bluetooth announced on Thursday. The increased broadcasting capacity could pave the way for the introduction of "connectionless" data transfers, meaning that the need to pair a Bluetooth device like a headset or wireless keyboard with a mobile app or computer program may become a thing of the past. Longer range means that it will be possible to use Bluetooth devices throughout the home, and higher speeds will make these devices more responsive."
http://ccm.net/news/27500-bluetooth-5-promises-an-end-to-pai...
That's like saying that we can improve office communication by having everyone yell louder so everyone else can hear them.
My understanding is that the anonymous broadcasting has been boosted, which may enable more interesting types of device handshaking abilities. It is not merely that the bandwidth has improved, as in the past.
> Still hard to pair, still unreliable.
Except every other BT device around you, just not yours.
Except every other BT device around you, just not yours.
I use a pair of Presonus bluetooth speakers daily, and have for months. There's never been a bluetooth problem. Maybe you've got bad firmware or something?
I think the issue at hand, is these devices should be able to be treated mostly as appliances... you wouldn't put up with your TV tuner just randomly dropping, requiring you to turn it off and on again... or your oven suddenly switching to clean mode while you're cooking a chicken.
It comes down to standards compliance and quality control issues.
It comes down to standards compliance and quality control issues.
Yes 1000x. I always prefer proprietary wireless devices over Bluetooth since it's been such crap since inception. My first taste of Bluetooth was with a Nokia 6600 and a Sony Ericsson HBH-660 more than a decade ago. It dropped the connection all the time, the caller ID didn't work, the audio would be choppy, etc. This was in 2004 or 2005. The headset didn't work with any other future phone I had, even though it was "compliant" with this "standard".
These days, I have a DualShock 4 controller which Windows 7 and 10 don't like, using 4 different Bluetooth radios. It also won't pair with my FireTV, though this is possibly a purposeful limitation because Amazon wants to sell me their controller.
Speaking of that FireTV, the Bluetooth remote doesn't work the majority of the time, and eats a pair of Energizer lithium AAAs about every 3 weeks. It's nice that it's not IR, and I usually just use the Fire remote app instead of the physical remote, but it annoys me to no end that we've replaced something which was simple and reliable with something which is complex and wonky; same problem with touchscreen everything in cars and everywhere these days, but that's a rant for another time.
I have a nice pair of Logitech Ultimate Ears UE9000 headphones which have audio glitches every 1-60 seconds when connected to my PC. This makes gaming on them basically impossible. The range for a good connection is about 6'. I usually just plug them in, negating why I bought wireless headphones.
My Automatic OBD dongle works well -- except for the super unreliable Bluetooth connection, which pairs about 80% of the time anywhere between 5 seconds after I start my car to 10 minutes into a drive. Trying to get it into the actual "connected" mode where it can work (poorly, at a slow and highly variable update rate) with Harry's Lap Timer is an exercise in frustration, killing the iOS app multiple times, trying to re-pair it, toggling Bluetooth, etc.
My Suunto Ambit 3 watch works unreliably with Bluetooth, and the messaging "smart"watch feature is so annoying to use that I just turn it off and sync it manually with a laptop. Bluetooth again here. Their proprietary fitness band (which can also do Bluetooth) works fine with the watch.
A Polar fitness band did so poorly with pairing that I replaced it with the Suunto belt mentioned above for use with the watch. Pairing to my phone would work about half the time. These fitness bands are also annoying since they have no status light to indicate power or Bluetooth connection state; you just have to get it wet so it conducts and hope it's on and that the battery isn't flat.
In my car I have a Pioneer aftermarket radio with Bluetooth. It doesn't support a profile which lets me play audio, only hands-free phone call mode. The USB connection mis-pairs with my iPhone about half the time. The Bluetooth feature for syncing the phone book is worthless.
I also have some Jaybird Bluebuds X Bluetooth headphones. These mostly work fine, and switch connections better than almost any other BT device I've owned. The audio does drop occasionally, but they're pretty good for listening to directions on a motorcycle.
By far the BT device I've been most pleased with has been the Logitech Megaboom speaker. It never drops connection and switches pairing flawlessly between multiple phones and a PC. The only problem I can think of is that many phones don't account for a Bluetooth device which may be in range which you don't wish to immediately attempt to pair with, so they'll "steal" the Megaboom from a good connection whenever they have some audio (like an unlocking the phone sound) to play.
On the proprietary side, we have an XBone Elite controller with an expensive dongle which works perfectly, aside from the Windows store requiring about 4 hours of tinkering with registry settings and "repair" tools to get it to download the controller settings program from MS. The latency is great and it never drops out.
I have a few Logitech Unifying RX-compatible devices. They all work flawlessly. By comparison, a Logitech BT backlit keyboard I have loses pairing, doesn't connect, etc with various PCs, phones, and the FireTV.
Bluetooth is infuriating and has been for over a decade. I really hope that they address the pairing and reliability issues, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
These days, I have a DualShock 4 controller which Windows 7 and 10 don't like, using 4 different Bluetooth radios. It also won't pair with my FireTV, though this is possibly a purposeful limitation because Amazon wants to sell me their controller.
Speaking of that FireTV, the Bluetooth remote doesn't work the majority of the time, and eats a pair of Energizer lithium AAAs about every 3 weeks. It's nice that it's not IR, and I usually just use the Fire remote app instead of the physical remote, but it annoys me to no end that we've replaced something which was simple and reliable with something which is complex and wonky; same problem with touchscreen everything in cars and everywhere these days, but that's a rant for another time.
I have a nice pair of Logitech Ultimate Ears UE9000 headphones which have audio glitches every 1-60 seconds when connected to my PC. This makes gaming on them basically impossible. The range for a good connection is about 6'. I usually just plug them in, negating why I bought wireless headphones.
My Automatic OBD dongle works well -- except for the super unreliable Bluetooth connection, which pairs about 80% of the time anywhere between 5 seconds after I start my car to 10 minutes into a drive. Trying to get it into the actual "connected" mode where it can work (poorly, at a slow and highly variable update rate) with Harry's Lap Timer is an exercise in frustration, killing the iOS app multiple times, trying to re-pair it, toggling Bluetooth, etc.
My Suunto Ambit 3 watch works unreliably with Bluetooth, and the messaging "smart"watch feature is so annoying to use that I just turn it off and sync it manually with a laptop. Bluetooth again here. Their proprietary fitness band (which can also do Bluetooth) works fine with the watch.
A Polar fitness band did so poorly with pairing that I replaced it with the Suunto belt mentioned above for use with the watch. Pairing to my phone would work about half the time. These fitness bands are also annoying since they have no status light to indicate power or Bluetooth connection state; you just have to get it wet so it conducts and hope it's on and that the battery isn't flat.
In my car I have a Pioneer aftermarket radio with Bluetooth. It doesn't support a profile which lets me play audio, only hands-free phone call mode. The USB connection mis-pairs with my iPhone about half the time. The Bluetooth feature for syncing the phone book is worthless.
I also have some Jaybird Bluebuds X Bluetooth headphones. These mostly work fine, and switch connections better than almost any other BT device I've owned. The audio does drop occasionally, but they're pretty good for listening to directions on a motorcycle.
By far the BT device I've been most pleased with has been the Logitech Megaboom speaker. It never drops connection and switches pairing flawlessly between multiple phones and a PC. The only problem I can think of is that many phones don't account for a Bluetooth device which may be in range which you don't wish to immediately attempt to pair with, so they'll "steal" the Megaboom from a good connection whenever they have some audio (like an unlocking the phone sound) to play.
On the proprietary side, we have an XBone Elite controller with an expensive dongle which works perfectly, aside from the Windows store requiring about 4 hours of tinkering with registry settings and "repair" tools to get it to download the controller settings program from MS. The latency is great and it never drops out.
I have a few Logitech Unifying RX-compatible devices. They all work flawlessly. By comparison, a Logitech BT backlit keyboard I have loses pairing, doesn't connect, etc with various PCs, phones, and the FireTV.
Bluetooth is infuriating and has been for over a decade. I really hope that they address the pairing and reliability issues, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
That's nice, but the biggest UX problem with Bluetooth is still the pairing misery. It's 2016 and it's still nearly impossible to use any one Bluetooth device with multiple other devices. Try switching a Bluetooth headset from an iPhone to a Mac or convincing your car to switch from one phone to another.
It's a huge mess and its not just a matter of the technology not working as designed. These are fundamental problems that nobody seems to worry too much about, apart from a small number of vendors (Apple did a decent job solving the pairing problem with the Apple TV: http://9to5mac.com/2013/07/29/new-apple-tv-os-offers-nfc-lik...).
I realise it's pretty hard to beat the intuitive action of plugging physical cables into devices to connect two things, but if we really want to get rid of cables, things need to be easier.
It's a huge mess and its not just a matter of the technology not working as designed. These are fundamental problems that nobody seems to worry too much about, apart from a small number of vendors (Apple did a decent job solving the pairing problem with the Apple TV: http://9to5mac.com/2013/07/29/new-apple-tv-os-offers-nfc-lik...).
I realise it's pretty hard to beat the intuitive action of plugging physical cables into devices to connect two things, but if we really want to get rid of cables, things need to be easier.
So true.
At first I couldn't believe it, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely remove a paired bluetooth device from windows.
After having connected my wireless keyboard to my mac for a day, I tried to reconnect it to windows.
It fails silently and doesn't show up any more in available bluetooth devices. The connection to my mac obviously changed the pairing code, while windows still tries the old one.
I googled for hours, tried everything from uninstalling bluetooth drivers to removing entries from the registry.
Windows always silently re-adds the keyboard to the installed devices and fails at pairing.
So I've got 2 choices left: Buy a new keyboard or reinstall Windows. Yay!
I went the 'new keyboard' route when I needed to repair my Logitech K811 - I now have two keyboards on my desk, one for the mac, the other for the PC.. Absolutely ridiculous, but saved me wasting a day of installation (and inevitably having to re-pair the K811 in the future)
Doesn't the K811 have built-in functionality for changing it's bluetooth pairing by a button press? Does that fail to work or were you just disappointed in its build quality?
I went with an HP wireless elite keyboard and mouse with it's proprietary plug. I plug that into a usb switcher and then plug the switcher into my mac and windows machines.
I get sooooo tired of Windows either remember old stuff or forgetting new stuff. It is such a kludge of an OS.
I get sooooo tired of Windows either remember old stuff or forgetting new stuff. It is such a kludge of an OS.
I went back to a wired keyboard and have been happier ever since. Same for mouse, though that is somewhat irritating at times... I use a unicomp keyboard, and a logitech m500 mouse... Though I do miss some of the older mice that were more sturdy feeling.
I couldn't agree more. I have a set of headphones that I love using with my phone and several computers. It's such an annoyance to connect it from one to the other and it doesn't appear that ANYONE is even working on making this better anymore. There was that brief period where some bluetooth devices included NFC where you could take it to the device to pair which was actually interesting but it only happened to such few products I have no idea if it ultimately ended up being usable or not.
I bought an August EP650 Bluetooth headset recently that has NFC pairing. The problem is that my phone is the only other device I own that also supports it.
It strikes me as a software problem in the device, not a bluetooth limitation.
For example, some devices that I have pair only to a single peer, while others have no problems switching between several, while another device is limited to two peers--requiring a reset if you want a third.
I suggest that anyone buying a bluetooth device test out pairing between multiple devices and if the device makes you jump through hopes to switch between bluetooth peers then immediately return it.
For example, some devices that I have pair only to a single peer, while others have no problems switching between several, while another device is limited to two peers--requiring a reset if you want a third.
I suggest that anyone buying a bluetooth device test out pairing between multiple devices and if the device makes you jump through hopes to switch between bluetooth peers then immediately return it.
I found the NFC pairing feature to be pointless, tbh. The headphones still had to be put into pairing mode first, so the only step that it saved was going into settings on the phone and tapping the item in the list. It worked most of the time, but the one or two times that it didn't more than outweighed the benefits.
Apple’s stylus has a pretty effective and reliable pairing method: just briefly plug it into the tablet.
Too bad this method can’t be more generally used.
Too bad this method can’t be more generally used.
Apple Magic Trackpad 2/Mouse/Keyboard do work this way.
How? I always have issues switching my trackpad from my laptop to my mac mini and back...
edit: nevermind, just noticed you said magic trackpad 2
edit: nevermind, just noticed you said magic trackpad 2
They have a USB => Lightning cable. Plug it in briefly.
thanks, just noticed i missed a crucial '2' in the reply
You get pretty much the same thing these days if both devices support NFC. Just get within range, and ding.
Standardise that and make it ubiquitous and then it's interesting. Apple has the advantage that they own their entire platform so they can adopt a new "standard" immediately.
The standard already exist, and has been with us since 2.1. Now the ubiquity thing is quite another kettle of fish...
I didn't know that, cool! Though also depressing...
Im expecting the new beats to have something similar to this, or at least NFC if not.
Even with the Apple pencil, the pairing reliability is not great. Every time I disable Bluetooth on my iPad, I have to re-pair.
I'm surprised they didn't use some custom protocol, especially given how bad Bluetooth is, and they control the entire software and hardware stack.
I'm surprised they didn't use some custom protocol, especially given how bad Bluetooth is, and they control the entire software and hardware stack.
probably because the hardware for bluetooth stacks have gotten crazy small and efficient. I doubt even apple could recreate it without straight up acquiring a company that already can do it.
That, and there would be the need for an additional chip and antenna.
I don't need more range or more speed. I need it to reliably connect and stay connected while devices are well within range of each other, and stop breaking every time I upgrade anything. Unfortunately that would require making it less complex, which is about as likely as a broken egg spontaneously reassembling.
As a matter of fact "more range" is quite the opposite of what I want from Bluetooth. Do I really need to have 5000 keyboards within range of my computer at the office, instead of the 100 I already have? I definitely do not.
I'm currently wearing a heart monitoring device that communicates over Bluetooth and would greatly benefit from greater range. Which is to say, there's certainly a market for folks needing greater range.
What something like a heart monitor would need above anything else is reliability.
A monitor is not a life critical device, unless another critical device depends on the monitor's telemetry. Bluetooth is perfectly adequate in this case.
Headphones are the big benefactor here, for me at least. I can walk to the kitchen with my wireless headphones.
The problem though is the Sun will negatively affect Bluetooth range. If you're inside it's great and you can go into multiple rooms depending on the materials / wall thickness between you and the device. Once you go outside on a sunny day if the phone isn't directly in the line-of-sight (and even then) you'll get constant disconnects. Using multiple headsets / headphones and phones (including iPhone and multiple Androids) and I have yet to have one that DIDN'T do this.
More range may help thing. Well I can hope anyway.
More range may help thing. Well I can hope anyway.
Sun affects bluetooth? How?
The only times I've trouble with BT outside is when tons of people or shops are nearby (overcrowded 2.4 ghz spectrum I assume - bt, wifi, etc)
The only times I've trouble with BT outside is when tons of people or shops are nearby (overcrowded 2.4 ghz spectrum I assume - bt, wifi, etc)
The Sun affects the range? How and why, that doesn't make sense at all?
> How and why, that doesn't make sense at all?
Not sure. I remember reading an article some time ago that stated the Sun's electromagnetic radiation could interfere with Bluetooth and it's always worked with my observations. I've used multiple Plantronics headsets, Motorola headphones and an off brand of headphones all with an iPhone 5S, iPhone 6+, Nexus 6P, Moto X and a Note 3 and in all of these devices they work great indoors and going outside on a sunny day it would break up (but cloudy always seemed to work better).
It's entirely possible this is some crazy bullshit but my observations are real. So if it ends up being that the Sun does NOT provide interfere then it must be SOMETHING. I just had this issue this past week when I was working outside and had to grab my wired headphones.
Not sure. I remember reading an article some time ago that stated the Sun's electromagnetic radiation could interfere with Bluetooth and it's always worked with my observations. I've used multiple Plantronics headsets, Motorola headphones and an off brand of headphones all with an iPhone 5S, iPhone 6+, Nexus 6P, Moto X and a Note 3 and in all of these devices they work great indoors and going outside on a sunny day it would break up (but cloudy always seemed to work better).
It's entirely possible this is some crazy bullshit but my observations are real. So if it ends up being that the Sun does NOT provide interfere then it must be SOMETHING. I just had this issue this past week when I was working outside and had to grab my wired headphones.
Another, as likely, aspect, is that Bluetooth is designed around signals bouncing off surfaces. Try moving your phone from one side of the body to the other while outside. It may well be that your surroundings do not provide enough signal reflection. Keep in mind that most mobile bluetooth radios do not transmit with the same strength as wifi. Best i can tell, only USB dongles use a wifi equivalent radio class.
Interesting and sounds reasonable. I wonder if Bluetooth 5 will help in this regard.
I guess it could be possible. But the thing about range is that is most often reported under ideal conditions. Meaning clear line of sight between antennas and little to no other transmissions in that frequency range.
And likely your best results will be if both devices are v5 devices.
And likely your best results will be if both devices are v5 devices.
The Sun is quite a noisy radio transmitter across a very wide range of frequencies. Downside of having a big, hot unshielded fusion reactor in the sky.
>Once you go outside on a sunny day if the phone isn't directly in the line-of-sight (and even then) you'll get constant disconnects. Using multiple headsets / headphones and phones (including iPhone and multiple Androids) and I have yet to have one that DIDN'T do this.
Well, I've used wireless keyboards (Apple compact) and wireless headphones (Parrot Zik 2.0), and had zero disconnects under the hottest of Suns in several different countries.
What do you mean "line of sight"? How far were you? Was it behind some wall or something? With the iPad/phone on my pocket/bag I never had any issue.
Well, I've used wireless keyboards (Apple compact) and wireless headphones (Parrot Zik 2.0), and had zero disconnects under the hottest of Suns in several different countries.
What do you mean "line of sight"? How far were you? Was it behind some wall or something? With the iPad/phone on my pocket/bag I never had any issue.
> What do you mean "line of sight"? How far were you? Was it behind some wall or something? With the iPad/phone on my pocket/bag I never had any issue.
Basically if the BT hardware itself was on the right side of my head then my phone had to be in my right pocket or I'd get semi frequent disconnects outside. So not really line-of-sight in visual spectrum terms but I have had so many observations with so many bluetooth headsets and headphones and different phones that I always believed the original article I read a long time ago about sun interference (which, of course, I can't find today).
It could certainly be something else but I most certainly have reproducible issues with using bluetooth outside versus inside my house or even car.
Basically if the BT hardware itself was on the right side of my head then my phone had to be in my right pocket or I'd get semi frequent disconnects outside. So not really line-of-sight in visual spectrum terms but I have had so many observations with so many bluetooth headsets and headphones and different phones that I always believed the original article I read a long time ago about sun interference (which, of course, I can't find today).
It could certainly be something else but I most certainly have reproducible issues with using bluetooth outside versus inside my house or even car.
No, shouldn't be related at all (with the Sun, as I've gotten fine connection in the sun, whether the side etc).
Sounds like it's more about some flimsy and/or underpowered BT headsets.
Sounds like it's more about some flimsy and/or underpowered BT headsets.
Could be that it's not the sun being the problem, but not having walls. Inside, the radio waves can bounce of the walls, around your body. Outside, they have to go through your body.
Seems reasonable and would certainly explain my issues. I wonder if Bluetooth 5 will help that in any way.
I have never had an issue in the sun with my phone in my pocket. Is that considered LOS?
I've found that microwave interferes very strongly with Bluetooth headphones
And bodies. Had to move my laptop dock to the other side of my desk when I switched headphones from a pair that had the transmitter in the left ear to the right.
Yeah that is perhaps the most problematic aspect of Bluetooth. The radio interface is designed with the presumption of the signal bouncing off nearby surfaces. Thus it is sensitive to line of sight issues.
Mind you, i have also been able to connect to a USB dongle through solid wood walls, so mileage may vary.
Never mind that you can get two classes of radios, on top of the LE stuff. With each class having different transmission strengths.
Mind you, i have also been able to connect to a USB dongle through solid wood walls, so mileage may vary.
Never mind that you can get two classes of radios, on top of the LE stuff. With each class having different transmission strengths.
Bluetooth is using the very same microwaves (much like wifi), so yes.
Agree, I look forward to the day I can leave my iPhone in a gym locker and work out with just headphones
I'd highly recommend getting a tiny mp3 player (say Clip Zip, though they are now discontinued...) and a short light headphone cable. Why send audio wirelessly when the tech to play it is as small as the receiver?
There are also headphones with built in players, I don't know how the quality of those is though.
There are also headphones with built in players, I don't know how the quality of those is though.
Why send audio wirelessly when the tech to play it is as small as the receiver?
Because you might want to stream audio from the Internet, or you don't want to waste time converting newer audio formats to MP3 and then copying them over, or you'd rather not have cables around you when you work out, or you might want to track what you've listen (particularly useful for audiobooks and long podcasts), etc.
Yes, these are not indispensable life necessities nor anything like that, but given the choice, I'd rather beam the audio from my tablet than carry an extra player.
Because you might want to stream audio from the Internet, or you don't want to waste time converting newer audio formats to MP3 and then copying them over, or you'd rather not have cables around you when you work out, or you might want to track what you've listen (particularly useful for audiobooks and long podcasts), etc.
Yes, these are not indispensable life necessities nor anything like that, but given the choice, I'd rather beam the audio from my tablet than carry an extra player.
So you'd be happy with a Chromecast Audio receiver built into a set of headphones?
Bluetooth headphones tend to have device volume control, play, pause, and skip. Many also have microphones and also allow to to take and make calls.
Pretty much all the decent dedicated MP3 players have been discontinued. The last really great one for me was the Samsung's range (nee Yepp). But unfortunately the last one was the YP-U7 back in 2012 and it's very obvious they aren't going to make any more, even though they never announced it.
Sony still does players but they're not very good.
Sony still does players but they're not very good.
I hate wires with a passion. I don't what's wrong with me but I manage to tie, bust, wrap, tangle them in every most ridiculous possible wrong way all the time. I'm always sniping for multipairing mp3 capable headphones.
Because it's impossible to stream music, podcasts and take calls ?
If you take calls at the gym then you are doing it wrong.
Because cables get caught on things, tangled up, and are just generally annoying to deal with on your person.
If your gym has metal lockers I don't think it will happen any time soon.
Would you be able to pause or control songs though?
Sure, bluetooth had media controls for ages. I have a bluetooth waterproof speaker that I just take with me in the shower - and I leave my phone outside of the bathroom so it doesn't get wet. I can change songs and pause with buttons on the speaker, with the phone safely on the other side of the wall.
I need the range. I routinely grab my phone when I'm cooking dinner and walk to the living room causing my bluetooth speaker to make awful noises.
I am able to leave my phone in my office in the basement and walk upstairs to get a cup of coffee and stay on the call with my bluetooth headphones.
Then again, if I'm biking and my phone is in my right pocket and I turn my head to the left, the audio skips. So I don't know if I can blame than on range, but there's something odd going on there.
Then again, if I'm biking and my phone is in my right pocket and I turn my head to the left, the audio skips. So I don't know if I can blame than on range, but there's something odd going on there.
The frequency range used, 2.4Ghz, is absorbed/blocked by water (rain, fog, leaves, wet dogs, human bodies, etc). Most mobile devices use a fairly weak transmitter both to save battery and because the distance between devices is expected to be short. On top of that, when indoors the signal may be bouncing off walls or other surfaces.
Is the bluetooth spec the limit though, or maybe the implementation? I can leave my phone on the table downstairs and my headphones still work fine in the attic, which is through 2 floors of reinforced concrete. I was very surprised to be able to do this, but kitchen-living room should be possible. Unless your kitchen is in the west wing, and your living room is a mile down the hall in the east wing in which case I'm envious of your living arrangement and understand the need for more range in the spec. ;)
As it's 2.4ghz it may also be partially spectrum pollution.
That said - that seems rather impressive for Bluetooth, I've had one reinforced concrete wall pretty consistently screw up most bluetooth signals in my experience, so I'd posit that you're getting unusually good reception there.
That said - that seems rather impressive for Bluetooth, I've had one reinforced concrete wall pretty consistently screw up most bluetooth signals in my experience, so I'd posit that you're getting unusually good reception there.
I wonder what strength the radios broadcast on. I do have a 2.4GHz wifi-router both downstairs and in the attic so you would expect no signal at all, given the situation. I'll admit that by this point it's extremely sensitive to spectrum pollution; a nearby laptop with wifi on will mess with it enough that it starts stuttering.
My only issue with bluetooth is with Android; it semi-randomly likes to change pitch and speed by a little [1]. Very noticeable if you listen to electronic music. Had it with my previous phone (Android M, CM) and now with my current phone (also Android M, stock) and different devices (headphones, car).
[1]https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=209473
[1]https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=209473
Yeah, anecdotal but every friend of mine that complains about BT does it in relation to their Android devices.
I've heard a couple of complaints about Macs but they're rare.
Seems the Android BT stack is just more... flaky. I wonder why...
I've heard a couple of complaints about Macs but they're rare.
Seems the Android BT stack is just more... flaky. I wonder why...
Android 1.0 to 4.3 (iirc) used Bluez, an open source implementation related to Linux.
Come 4.4 Google partnered up with qualcomm (again iirc) to write a new stack from scratch.
Come 4.4 Google partnered up with qualcomm (again iirc) to write a new stack from scratch.
Iirc, there are multiple classes of bluetooth radio. And only one of them, that i have most often seen in the form of USB dongles, are wifi equivalent.
That's where a wifi speaker is good.
The range increase is for distributed industrial network architectures, such as smart grids/cities. Bluetooth LE is aimed at long range, low power devices that are checking in with telemetry-type data every so often rather than pairing your phone and your keyboard to your computer.
...which is what Zigbee should be addressing.
Phone manufacturers universally adopted Bluetooth as the standard wireless protocol for peripheral devices.
Zigbee and other 802.15.4 protocols will always be at a disadvantage even for tasks the Bluetooth protocol is not suited for. Bluetooth chips are cheap and more widely supported than anything else because Bluetooth radios are manufactured at massive scale for the phone market.
Zigbee and other 802.15.4 protocols will always be at a disadvantage even for tasks the Bluetooth protocol is not suited for. Bluetooth chips are cheap and more widely supported than anything else because Bluetooth radios are manufactured at massive scale for the phone market.
The original poster was talking about scenarios with industrial devices and NOT for pairing with phones...
Bluetooth is already there, and if the same chip can be used in a phone or a button cell powered telemetry sensor, economies of scale kicks in.
And BTLE is specifically designed to work without the pairing dance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_low_energy
And BTLE is specifically designed to work without the pairing dance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_low_energy
> Bluetooth is already there, and if the same chip can be used in a phone or a button cell powered telemetry sensor, economies of scale
Actually, for industrial applications, it's more likely to be Zigbee that is already there, and the economies of scale will favour it over BTLE (particularly when you consider Zigbee allows thousands of devices in a network, while BTLE can't even get to double digits). There's a ton of other advantages to Zigbee for industrial applications (not the least of which is resiliency).
Maybe you want a bluetooth bridge (though WiFi is probably very tempting for that purpose), but bluetooth is bad enough at doing its own job, let alone something else.
Actually, for industrial applications, it's more likely to be Zigbee that is already there, and the economies of scale will favour it over BTLE (particularly when you consider Zigbee allows thousands of devices in a network, while BTLE can't even get to double digits). There's a ton of other advantages to Zigbee for industrial applications (not the least of which is resiliency).
Maybe you want a bluetooth bridge (though WiFi is probably very tempting for that purpose), but bluetooth is bad enough at doing its own job, let alone something else.
The main reason they are even increasing the range is for advertisers' rather than users' sake. They want advertisers to be able to "push" ads to people at a longer range.
Depends on your goal :) if you want to listen in on 5000 different keyboards, then the range extension is quite welcome.
Though personally i don't either.
Though personally i don't either.
Yup. Bluetooth is kind of a nightmare for operability. I do think it could benefit from a bit more speed, in terms of opening up what it can do, but in terms of range.... if I need range, I'll use WiFi. What I need is for bluetooth to just work, dammit. I get that it is hard, but work on that before you work on anything else. Heck, I've found that using WiFi instead of bluetooth for a wireless hotspot/link is more reliable. How is that possible?
It's aimed at low power IoT devices. Wi-Fi is (relatively) very power hungry compared with Bluetooth LE.
Power helps with signal quality and bandwidth maybe, but simplicity and interoperability are all but completely orthogonal concerns.
I have a Nexus 6p, which I connect to my car via Bluetooth for music and navigation.
The dropped audio, stutters, and need to reconnect are driving me crazy. I've now switched back to a generic audio cable.
Bluetooth reliability really is dire, the phone is within 10m of wherever the car transceiver is and in the designed hotspot too (inside the car) and it still fails.
The dropped audio, stutters, and need to reconnect are driving me crazy. I've now switched back to a generic audio cable.
Bluetooth reliability really is dire, the phone is within 10m of wherever the car transceiver is and in the designed hotspot too (inside the car) and it still fails.
That problem seems to be specific to Android. I had Samsung ATIV S, which did not have this problem at all (Win Phone). However both S3 and Nexus 6 have it. The later I bought in part to make it go away at least partially:(
[deleted]
Indeed, they made a mess of it twice - right around when BlueZ finally got good, they switched to a different stack on Android 4.2 and broke everything again.
I've got a cheap little Bluetooth kit for my car and mount it right next to my nexus 6p mount. I very rarely, if ever, have issues.
> Unfortunately that would require making it less complex, which is about as likely as a broken egg spontaneously reassembling.
This is such a great analogy on so many levels. The natural tendency of software projects to exhibit the effects of entropy.
This is such a great analogy on so many levels. The natural tendency of software projects to exhibit the effects of entropy.
It seems likely that "more range" also translates to "more robust at existing ranges" (but I have no facts to back that up)
This is what I need. Phone in pocket and Bluetooth headset on neck results in buffer dropouts when I'm mid stride. I have to hold my phone in my hand to get stable playback. And I'm using Bluetooth 4.
I'm imagining a stride which significantly changes transmitter-receiver distance or gets big body parts in the way. The Ministry of Silly Walks has a rival.
I'd also like it to consume less power. I know the current standard touts itself as "low-energy" but I can see a very noticeable increase in battery drain when I have it enabled on my phone. So I always keep it disabled.
This is really a poor marketing job by the Bluetooth SIG. Bluetooth 4.0 added BLE, the low energy mode, but it didn't change anything about the power usage of existing modes.
BLE is almost and entirely different protocol, albeit implemented on the same chipset, which is running alongside the existing Bluetooth stack on your phone. Nothing in the Bluetooth 4.0 spec reduces the power usage of the Basic Rate and Enhanced Data Rate modes.
BLE is almost and entirely different protocol, albeit implemented on the same chipset, which is running alongside the existing Bluetooth stack on your phone. Nothing in the Bluetooth 4.0 spec reduces the power usage of the Basic Rate and Enhanced Data Rate modes.
Seems similar to the mess that is USB 3.1.
One would be lead to believe that 3.1 and the C plug is one and the same, But they are not.
There are actually 3 different specs that the OEMs can combine in various ways.
First is the C plug spec, that can be used with or without the Power Delivery and 3.1 data spec.
Then there is the 3.1 data spec, that is so minor an update to the 3.0 spec that effectively all 3.0 devices are 3.1 compatible. It can be used with A and C plugs alike.
Then there is the Power Delivery spec. This promises that you can get up to 20V out of a USB port, any USB port. Yep, you can encounter A ports that can go up to 20V if you have the right device and cable at the other end.
One would be lead to believe that 3.1 and the C plug is one and the same, But they are not.
There are actually 3 different specs that the OEMs can combine in various ways.
First is the C plug spec, that can be used with or without the Power Delivery and 3.1 data spec.
Then there is the 3.1 data spec, that is so minor an update to the 3.0 spec that effectively all 3.0 devices are 3.1 compatible. It can be used with A and C plugs alike.
Then there is the Power Delivery spec. This promises that you can get up to 20V out of a USB port, any USB port. Yep, you can encounter A ports that can go up to 20V if you have the right device and cable at the other end.
I never understood why Bluetooth and NFC still aren't best friends. Pairing should be as simple as tapping.
I do have a bluetooth receiver with NFC. It's great!
> I don't need more range ... I need it to reliably connect and stay connected while devices are well within range
You might need more range.
I have connectivity problems (short drop-outs) with a little BT receiver I use with the bone-conduction headphones (not BT themselves) I use when running if I have the receiver clipped to my shorts on the side opposite the arm I have the phone arm-band on but not if it is clipped to the other side or higher up.
The problem presumably is that the 10m range is an "up to" figure achieved in ideal conditions and having my body between the two devices is not ideal conditions.
Of course if the interference is of the "no signal at all is going to get through the noise floor" variety then increasing the range (presumably by increasing power output?) isn't going to help.
You might need more range.
I have connectivity problems (short drop-outs) with a little BT receiver I use with the bone-conduction headphones (not BT themselves) I use when running if I have the receiver clipped to my shorts on the side opposite the arm I have the phone arm-band on but not if it is clipped to the other side or higher up.
The problem presumably is that the 10m range is an "up to" figure achieved in ideal conditions and having my body between the two devices is not ideal conditions.
Of course if the interference is of the "no signal at all is going to get through the noise floor" variety then increasing the range (presumably by increasing power output?) isn't going to help.
I'd just like to have paired devices actually automatically reconnect without having to unpair and repair.
The only things that seems to do this reliably are PS4 controllers with my PC.
The only things that seems to do this reliably are PS4 controllers with my PC.
It can be done with BT - the $15 headphones I buy from random Chinese sellers work fine every time. The implementations seem to be at fault, not the protocol.
I'd say the protocol is at fault if it's difficult to implement.
The physical world always has implementation difficulties. It is a messy, noisy, uncontrolled place. On top of that, many implementers will avoid going full-ass when half-ass will do. No protocol will ever fix these issues.
Thankfully my '08 car does this, but my fathers £400 pilot headsets won't stay paired with anything.
Speed, who cares. I need better latency.
At least Bluetooth mice/trackpads need better response time.
For example Magic Trackpad 2 is so horrible to use compared to Macbook built in trackpad because of bluetooth latency.
It's also jarring for audio and it doesn't help that they also use latency-inducing SBC.
At least Bluetooth mice/trackpads need better response time.
For example Magic Trackpad 2 is so horrible to use compared to Macbook built in trackpad because of bluetooth latency.
It's also jarring for audio and it doesn't help that they also use latency-inducing SBC.
You know there's a problem when a majority of the comments (on a website filled with software engineers and other technologically inclined people) are all claiming that Bluetooth simply sucks in terms of usability. Imagine how hard it would be for someone like my parents to debug a Bluetooth pairing issue.
I think they need to focus 100% of their efforts on addressing some of these issues which seem to have been a problem since the beginning.
Bluetooth is “almost there” in my opinion. It’s incredibly convenient (when it works), and I can envision how great it will be once they work all the kinks out. It has been getting better and I’m confident it will keep improving.
Let me just add another data point:
I have a 2013 Android phone and a 2011 car. Luckily, the car supports playing audio through Bluetooth which is really cool when it works. However, every time I get into the car, there’s a 50/50 chance that BT audio will actually work. The phone always pairs with the car, but it seems like it doesn’t reliably “negotiate” the audio capability. Sometimes I can make a phone call which seems to reset the system and can cause it to start working, but other times I have to actually power cycle the phone.
The other issue is that every once-in-a-while, there will be this spontaneous audible crackle. After the initial crackle occurs, there will be periodic crackles about once every 10 seconds from there on out. The only way to get it out of this state is to make a call or restart the phone. It seems almost like there’s some kind of memory leak in a buffer or something which causes it to eventually run dry and bounce off of being empty.
These issues seem more software related and probably have nothing to do with the Bluetooth standard itself, but I won’t let that stop me from ranting.
I think they need to focus 100% of their efforts on addressing some of these issues which seem to have been a problem since the beginning.
Bluetooth is “almost there” in my opinion. It’s incredibly convenient (when it works), and I can envision how great it will be once they work all the kinks out. It has been getting better and I’m confident it will keep improving.
Let me just add another data point:
I have a 2013 Android phone and a 2011 car. Luckily, the car supports playing audio through Bluetooth which is really cool when it works. However, every time I get into the car, there’s a 50/50 chance that BT audio will actually work. The phone always pairs with the car, but it seems like it doesn’t reliably “negotiate” the audio capability. Sometimes I can make a phone call which seems to reset the system and can cause it to start working, but other times I have to actually power cycle the phone.
The other issue is that every once-in-a-while, there will be this spontaneous audible crackle. After the initial crackle occurs, there will be periodic crackles about once every 10 seconds from there on out. The only way to get it out of this state is to make a call or restart the phone. It seems almost like there’s some kind of memory leak in a buffer or something which causes it to eventually run dry and bounce off of being empty.
These issues seem more software related and probably have nothing to do with the Bluetooth standard itself, but I won’t let that stop me from ranting.
If you have an android, when your phone doesn't pair audio, going to Bluetooth settings, hitting the gear icon next to your cars name and turning audio off then on again usually fixes it.
In my experience, if the implementation is wrong often enough that most people think the procotol/spec are to blame, than the protocol/spec are usually too complicated.
In my experience, no standard is too simple for someone to mess up implementing.
True, but in the case of BlueTooth, the standard is so complex that everyone does mess up implementing it.
To be clear: I'm not advocating for no standard. I'm advocating that BT needs to simplify the existing standard
The perfect example being USB cables that managed to get 4 wires so crossed they fried a tablet.
Working with Bluetooth on a project last year was a gigantic pain in the ass.
Linux support was reasonably good, though with bizarre quirks and changes of tooling between libbluetooth versions. OSX was a total nightmare.
The project is currently stalled because three days before I had to head off (I was doing all of the programming and troubleshooting on the software side) my collaborators decided to inform me that they would be using a different laptop to what they'd been using for the rest of the project, and when we tried our software with that version of OSX and hardware, it refused to work nicely. We eventually came up with a bizarre pairing ritual that involved removing devices, then quickly adding them, and in a specific order, and then that mysteriously stopped working and now I don't have access to hardware to fix it.
Knowing what I now know, if I'd had my time again I would have recommended ESP8266 based boards instead of the LightBlue Beans we were using. Even though one of our requirements was low power usage (which we certainly got through Bluetooth 4), it probably would have been less hassle to just make the WiFi modem sleep for a period and then transmit in bursts.
Linux support was reasonably good, though with bizarre quirks and changes of tooling between libbluetooth versions. OSX was a total nightmare.
The project is currently stalled because three days before I had to head off (I was doing all of the programming and troubleshooting on the software side) my collaborators decided to inform me that they would be using a different laptop to what they'd been using for the rest of the project, and when we tried our software with that version of OSX and hardware, it refused to work nicely. We eventually came up with a bizarre pairing ritual that involved removing devices, then quickly adding them, and in a specific order, and then that mysteriously stopped working and now I don't have access to hardware to fix it.
Knowing what I now know, if I'd had my time again I would have recommended ESP8266 based boards instead of the LightBlue Beans we were using. Even though one of our requirements was low power usage (which we certainly got through Bluetooth 4), it probably would have been less hassle to just make the WiFi modem sleep for a period and then transmit in bursts.
Depending on how much data you need to transfer between the two devices, I'd highly recommend a pair of ZigBee radios for low-bandwidth (<250k), super-low-power applications. Specifically using a pair of XBee (series 1) radios in "transparent" mode, you get what looks like a serial device on either end. When used with a USB dongle, you can simply write your code to use basic ioctl ops on the USB device file, which works well across most POSIX platforms.
macOS/iOS support for Bluetooth is very good at the core API level but ultimately that means you must use Objective-C for at least a small part of your codebase.
I think a lot of the comments here could be attributed to the terrible Bluetooth software stacks that are around (Car head-decks, Android (all versions), Windows 8-10 default stacks).
I've got a brand new Plugable BT4 dongle that barely works in Win 10 because Broadcom haven't updated their suite so it relies on the default 10 drivers - you can't have a HFP and A2DP service running at the same time so a headset with speakers and mic won't work.
I've got a brand new Plugable BT4 dongle that barely works in Win 10 because Broadcom haven't updated their suite so it relies on the default 10 drivers - you can't have a HFP and A2DP service running at the same time so a headset with speakers and mic won't work.
At what number of terrible Bluetooth software stacks does one start wondering if there isn't something fundamentally wrong with the specification that makes it so incredibly hard to get right?
It's been bad from day one with Widcomm and later Bluesoleil on Windows. Mac OS X for years had a Bluetooth where after a couple of hours of using the DUN profile it would need a reboot, on an otherwise nicely reliable operating system. Mice on Bluetooth have never worked as smoothly, reliably, or as well as just using a proprietary protocol like Logitech Unifying.
It's not that I necessarily think it's an unsolvable problem, it's just that after a decade with so many multiple implementations that can't get it right I feel Bluetooth itself has to bear some responsibility.
It's been bad from day one with Widcomm and later Bluesoleil on Windows. Mac OS X for years had a Bluetooth where after a couple of hours of using the DUN profile it would need a reboot, on an otherwise nicely reliable operating system. Mice on Bluetooth have never worked as smoothly, reliably, or as well as just using a proprietary protocol like Logitech Unifying.
It's not that I necessarily think it's an unsolvable problem, it's just that after a decade with so many multiple implementations that can't get it right I feel Bluetooth itself has to bear some responsibility.
bluetooth is an extended public alpha
I so can't wait for phones to drop 3.5mm jacks so playing music can become an infuriating ritual too
I so can't wait for phones to drop 3.5mm jacks so playing music can become an infuriating ritual too
I have the same issue with a Philips SHB7150 headset. Music will play okay using A2DP (with occasional stuttering and pitch changes) but all Skype calls automatically revert to HFP (extremely bad quality). So the device has what looks like a decent microphone that is completely destroyed by Bluetooth (where in the stack this happens, I don't know).
>all Skype calls automatically revert to HFP (extremely bad quality)
While it's true that audio quality over HFP is a lot worse than A2DP, note that A2DP is designed for cases where latency is not an issue, you want stereo audio, and there is no microphone audio to carry the other way. (i.e., designed to listen to music)
If you want low latency mono-audio to the headset + microphone audio back to the host, there is no choice except to use HFP.
Note that if your headset (and your host device) supports HFP1.6, then it should support wideband speech/HD voice and the difference should not be so drastic.
While it's true that audio quality over HFP is a lot worse than A2DP, note that A2DP is designed for cases where latency is not an issue, you want stereo audio, and there is no microphone audio to carry the other way. (i.e., designed to listen to music)
If you want low latency mono-audio to the headset + microphone audio back to the host, there is no choice except to use HFP.
Note that if your headset (and your host device) supports HFP1.6, then it should support wideband speech/HD voice and the difference should not be so drastic.
The problem is finding both the host (dongle/chipset/card) and client (headphone/speakerphone/headset) that support the correct versions. Most of the time the information isn't listed anywhere, and Windows certainly doesn't expose it by default.
Bluetooth is very easy to hate. It never ever just works: the pairing rituals, the flakiness. It's annoying.
But in recent years it has become more and more invisible. You've probably used Bluetooth in the past 12 months without noticing. Invisibility is something that the Bluetooth SIG should strive for.
But in recent years it has become more and more invisible. You've probably used Bluetooth in the past 12 months without noticing. Invisibility is something that the Bluetooth SIG should strive for.
So much negativity about bluetooth in these comments ... and yet I can happily say that bluetooth has really changed my life. Bluetooth headphones allow me to walk around and exercise without an annoying cord trailing the length of my body. And I can get to the office and sit down with my mouse and keyboard and just start typing without plugging anything at all in. While it certainly had early problems, I'm super happy with it these days and especially the increase in bandwidth will be very welcome.
Bluetooth has made me feel happy about the existence of cords. Ahhhhhhh, I think to myself: it will definitely work, when I plug this thing into that other thing.
Its because it is a complex combination of hardware and software protocols.
With wifi you have a single channel, and basically ethernet. On top of that anything goes as far as software is concerned.
With Bluetooth you have channel hopping radios, a pairing system for devices, and a bunch of profiles/protocols that define anything from basic serial data to encoding agnostic audio.
With wifi you have a single channel, and basically ethernet. On top of that anything goes as far as software is concerned.
With Bluetooth you have channel hopping radios, a pairing system for devices, and a bunch of profiles/protocols that define anything from basic serial data to encoding agnostic audio.
For those who have given up on Engadget (I can't be the only one):
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/bluetooth-5-spec-comi...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/bluetooth-5-spec-comi...
What's wrong with Engadget?
It's 80% clickbaity bullshit and 20% mediocre gadget reviews. Long gone are the days when Engadget was a relevant source of tech journalism. On a tangentially related note, does anyone remember Engadget's apple-only sister site TUAW? That was a great outlet for a good long while until Engadget started to shit the bed a couple years ago.
What I want from my wireless devices is not more range or speed, but total freedom from wires, especially for charging.
I remember from an Intel demo from a while ago, where they showcased a number of peripherals using their inductive charging tech, where you can just dump them onto a large inductive charging pad along with your phone and tablet without having to fumble with plugging wires into each one. That's the killer feature for a wireless device, in my opinion.
I remember from an Intel demo from a while ago, where they showcased a number of peripherals using their inductive charging tech, where you can just dump them onto a large inductive charging pad along with your phone and tablet without having to fumble with plugging wires into each one. That's the killer feature for a wireless device, in my opinion.
Here is a device I would pay for:
A USB dongle that somehow pairs to my Apple Keyboard and Touchpad and presents itself as a standard USB keyboard and mouse to the OS.
I could plug said device to my cinema display's USB hub. This way both me and my wife could use the same workstation by simply plugging in the computer.
A USB dongle that somehow pairs to my Apple Keyboard and Touchpad and presents itself as a standard USB keyboard and mouse to the OS.
I could plug said device to my cinema display's USB hub. This way both me and my wife could use the same workstation by simply plugging in the computer.
Maybe I'm living in the past and haven't been informed, but is Bluetooth still unsecure?
Bluetooth 4.0 and 4.1 had a broken key exchange that was vulnerable to both passive and active attacks [1]. This could be remedied by a custom in-band or out-of-band key exchange, but I think it was rare for device manufacturers to go to those lengths.
The key exchange vulnerability was addressed in Bluetooth 4.2, which implements ECDH and is at least theoretically secure. [2]
[1] https://www.usenix.org/conference/woot13/workshop-program/pr...
[2] http://blog.bluetooth.com/everything-you-always-wanted-to-kn...
The key exchange vulnerability was addressed in Bluetooth 4.2, which implements ECDH and is at least theoretically secure. [2]
[1] https://www.usenix.org/conference/woot13/workshop-program/pr...
[2] http://blog.bluetooth.com/everything-you-always-wanted-to-kn...
Except... that pairing in Bluetooth 4.2 is still broken. And they apparently even used an algorithm from Bluetooth 2 that was known to be broken.
https://pomcor.com/2015/06/03/has-bluetooth-become-secure/
Basically Passkey Entry is broken so eavesdroppers can trivially learn the PIN. You must use a dynamic PIN (not always possible).
Oh and if you're thinking you can implement your own pairing method that is actually secure, via the Out-of-Band method, think again! Neither Android nor iOS support it.
https://pomcor.com/2015/06/03/has-bluetooth-become-secure/
Basically Passkey Entry is broken so eavesdroppers can trivially learn the PIN. You must use a dynamic PIN (not always possible).
Oh and if you're thinking you can implement your own pairing method that is actually secure, via the Out-of-Band method, think again! Neither Android nor iOS support it.
>Neither Android nor iOS support [pairing ... via the Out-of-Band method].
I'm not sure this is actually true (unless you're talking about bugs with individual manufacturers implementation on Android?). Both iOS and Android support SSP with OOB key exchange via NFC.
There are lots of products that have been available that use this for pairing/connecting, eg: https://www.bose.com/en_us/support/article/pairing-a-device-...
I'm not sure this is actually true (unless you're talking about bugs with individual manufacturers implementation on Android?). Both iOS and Android support SSP with OOB key exchange via NFC.
There are lots of products that have been available that use this for pairing/connecting, eg: https://www.bose.com/en_us/support/article/pairing-a-device-...
Android supports OOB via NFC, but only as a special case. You should just be able to call `createBondOutOfBand()` but the method is hidden:
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base.gi...
I'm pretty sure iOS doesn't support pairing via NFC.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nfc-speakers-from-apple-you-c...
http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-business/iphone...
So, no, they don't support OOB (except in one limited case on Android).
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base.gi...
I'm pretty sure iOS doesn't support pairing via NFC.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nfc-speakers-from-apple-you-c...
http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-business/iphone...
So, no, they don't support OOB (except in one limited case on Android).
If the attacker has a ubertooth, and is present when the key exchange happens.
Yes, it still is especially since 4.0, and this new update does not seem to do anything to improve it. BT sux.
Care to elaborate?
Try going from having bluetooth off on your phone to bluetooth being on in your car that has bluetooth capable device. It sucks. Every car I've been has trouble pairing if bluetooth wasn't on prior to me entering the car. For one car, I had to turn the engine off for it pair. WTF?
Forgive my ignorance, but how come the range is affected by the protocol? Wouldn't it be the aerial?
There are many things in a protocol specification that can affect range. Allowed transmission power, specifiying that compliant receivers should have X dBm sensitivity, data bit rate, channel frequencies, modulation, etc.
It could be new modulation techniques. You can often transmit further if you lower your data rate.
Its really exciting to see that kind of capabilities and potential that bluetooth 5 brings to the table for IoT. However, what excited me even more is the capabilities put forward by bluetooth 5 to boost beacon adoption and location-based services. Given how Google's recent updates such as Google Nearby and Android Instant Apps are also ones with location-based services at its core, bluetooth 5 onces it's launched will definitely boost beacon adoption to a significant extent.
I guess that is with the same power usage, as it would be disingenuous if that were different, but it would be nice to have that confirmed.
Also, I guess that, for many IoT devices, keeping range and speed the same while decreasing power usage significantly (although, as a third guess, I expect 'double the speed' means that devices can go to low power mode quicker, potentially halving power usage of the entire device) might be more useful.
Also, I guess that, for many IoT devices, keeping range and speed the same while decreasing power usage significantly (although, as a third guess, I expect 'double the speed' means that devices can go to low power mode quicker, potentially halving power usage of the entire device) might be more useful.
The only reason I like Bluetooth at all is because the alternative is a bunch of USB receivers plugged into my NUC.
But I have to admit that it seems to work pretty well on my iPhone while years ago on other phones I had a lot of disconnects. I have one of the LG around the neck headsets and it's actually really good at this point.
I'd like to see more BT headsets for PC hit the market. The only ones I could find were from Turtle Beach.
But I have to admit that it seems to work pretty well on my iPhone while years ago on other phones I had a lot of disconnects. I have one of the LG around the neck headsets and it's actually really good at this point.
I'd like to see more BT headsets for PC hit the market. The only ones I could find were from Turtle Beach.
>. I have one of the LG around the neck headsets and it's actually really good at this point.
These are great but the real drawback that keeps me from going wireless is still the audio quality. Hopefully this upgrade will be the end of that.
These are great but the real drawback that keeps me from going wireless is still the audio quality. Hopefully this upgrade will be the end of that.
I'm concerned about Apple possibly removing the 3.5mm jack. Removing the ability to use a headset + charge my phone at the same time is going to be a killer. I may switch back to Android if that happens.
I bought one of the very few 3.5mm cellphone headsets I could find (Voistek) for my wife and it works pretty well. We shouldn't be forced into choosing between wired up for charging or wired up for headset/headphones.
I bought one of the very few 3.5mm cellphone headsets I could find (Voistek) for my wife and it works pretty well. We shouldn't be forced into choosing between wired up for charging or wired up for headset/headphones.
And then bluetooth became wifi.
My hope for the future of phone/car interfaces is that once you've paired a phone, the touch screen basically becomes a display for the phone... I have a brand new (less than a week old) car, and the UI feels sluggish, and looks very dated at this point. I'd rather my N6P managed the whole thing. Hopefully BT5 can allow that to happen.
[deleted]
Wonder why it was not thought earlier? After BT we saw development in WiFi,GPS, RDID etc. Nobody thought that BT could help indoor for the shopping mall usecase present in the article.
Now they are planning for late 2016, means it will only be available in new phones from 2017
Now they are planning for late 2016, means it will only be available in new phones from 2017
Ah great, a new BT version once again, when even the LAST standard isn't properly supported (and especially documented!!!) in BlueZ. Not to mention Windows (which usually comes with a next-to-useless stack, and every other stack costs $$$) or OS X...
Nearly every comment in this thread is about pairing issues. I can definitely agree with most that I don't care about range and speed as much as I do the usability of pairing with multiple devices.
While I'm not a fan of Bluetooth for data transfer (pairing pains), this could be great for cheap indoor location services, eg. navigating inside a building with your phone.
And hopefully we will get bluetooth audio that doesn't suck?
Do I want longer range from bluetooth devices ?
I sort of thought the short range was, kind of, a feature ...
How far do you really want your mouse trails and your keystrokes to fly out into the ether ?
I sort of thought the short range was, kind of, a feature ...
How far do you really want your mouse trails and your keystrokes to fly out into the ether ?
I want better range, more bandwidth, less power consumption, and smaller footprint. Oh and make it super reliable.
One can dream...
One can dream...
am I the only one, or does putting more radiation out into the environment pose substantial health risks.
All of this excess radiation is bound to cause some potential mutations in DNA. Adding even more is only going to increase the probabilities.
All of this excess radiation is bound to cause some potential mutations in DNA. Adding even more is only going to increase the probabilities.
Curious if these upgrades include any addressing security.
I kind of want an 802.11z that does wifi over Bluetooth for sub-802.11a conditions. Am I weird?
IIRC there's already a spec for this, usually it's called something like PAN (Personal Area Network).
John Gruber from Daring Fireball has already written his review:
> “Next year it will work great” should be Bluetooth’s slogan.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/06/10/bluetooth-5
> “Next year it will work great” should be Bluetooth’s slogan.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/06/10/bluetooth-5
That's just gratuitously negative and dismissive.
Bluetooth 4 is actually not bad at all in my experience. Pairing is painless relative to old versions; sound quality is flawless; connections are quite reliable. The "strain" is to be expected around other devices since Bluetooth uses 2.4GHz, a very crowded band. I can't speak to the technical bits since I never looked at them, but my experience as a consumer has been positive.
Sure, it doesn't have the same range as a WiFi router, but it also doesn't use 1.5-20 watts (My source: http://www.tpcdb.com/list.php?type=11)
Bluetooth 4 is actually not bad at all in my experience. Pairing is painless relative to old versions; sound quality is flawless; connections are quite reliable. The "strain" is to be expected around other devices since Bluetooth uses 2.4GHz, a very crowded band. I can't speak to the technical bits since I never looked at them, but my experience as a consumer has been positive.
Sure, it doesn't have the same range as a WiFi router, but it also doesn't use 1.5-20 watts (My source: http://www.tpcdb.com/list.php?type=11)
Depends on the devices. My car, for instance, has about a 50% chance of successfully hooking up to my iPhone.
BT needs fewer features and better implementations. But apparently interop and reliability are not sexy enough for the BT standards folks to worry about. Can you imagine TCP/IP being in the same quality hole that Bluetooth is in?
BT needs fewer features and better implementations. But apparently interop and reliability are not sexy enough for the BT standards folks to worry about. Can you imagine TCP/IP being in the same quality hole that Bluetooth is in?
Right, I agree that it depends on the device. A Chevy model I don't recall had the stupidest bug where you sometimes couldn't pair unless you reset the car computer... by leaving the driver's door open for 5 minutes.
I don't blame the Bluetooth standard though, messy as it might be. That's clearly terrible implementation on the car manufacturer's part.
I don't blame the Bluetooth standard though, messy as it might be. That's clearly terrible implementation on the car manufacturer's part.
BT seems over-complicated, especially considering that it's quite often low-level (I really mean that organizationally) firmware engineers working on products that won't be updated after they ship.
Given the types of products that are made with BT support, the hostile environments that they're developed within, and the common after-sales abandonment of support, BT should be a simpler protocol that is a LOT more resilient to implementation mistakes. But I don't think that anyone designs protocols to withstand institutional failure :-)
Given the types of products that are made with BT support, the hostile environments that they're developed within, and the common after-sales abandonment of support, BT should be a simpler protocol that is a LOT more resilient to implementation mistakes. But I don't think that anyone designs protocols to withstand institutional failure :-)
BT itself is not overly complicated. Bargain basement BT chips, which is what everyone ends up using to save pennies, are full of bugs that have to be worked around. Of the various BT stacks out there, only a few are actually good, and the good ones get to charge appropriate licensing fees, meaning that they aren't in wide use.
When you combine randChip with randBtStack, the end result is not necessarily a quality product. The poor engineers who have to work with this combination end up resorting to sending reset commands to their chip in an attempt to get the damn thing working.
When you combine randChip with randBtStack, the end result is not necessarily a quality product. The poor engineers who have to work with this combination end up resorting to sending reset commands to their chip in an attempt to get the damn thing working.
It would be really interesting to have a list of good BT stacks and devices using them. That way maybe we could avoid the bad ones. As a consumer I have no idea which devices will actually work properly (and I assume Bluetooth as a whole sucks).
Fifteen years ago, looking at the Bluetooth spec my impression was the best way to implement it would have been to send the designers to the Siberia and then start over.
The two issues I saw were Bluetooth is based on a frequency hopping radio using a dated low performance modulation scheme. The only nice thing you could say is potentially you can build really low power radio's using that design. However that brings up the second issues, a very complicated kitchen sink base band which requires a complex software stack and power hungry processor to support it. There goes your low power, out the window. (I think there were about 20 companies trying to design low power Bluetooth transceivers circa 2000-2003, most of them never could get the power low enough or a working stack)
Hardware design issues aside, frequency hoppers have insurmountable quality of service issues for most applications. Professionally I don't think this is fixable.
They would have been better off doing the following three things.
1. Define a low speed point to point oriented modulation scheme that can be supported by 802.11 radio front ends. Probably could have implemented this as a sub-band of some sort.
2. A direct sequence spread spectrum physical layer for USB. Advantage of that is the USB stack mostly works as USB had a 10 year head start and more resources than the Bluetooth alliance ever had, or will have. If one thinks a stack like USB is 'easy' consider Microsoft had to redesign theirs three or four times.
3. Dedicated DSSS wireless headphone spec. Seriously this was the original design goal and was totally achievable until the committee responsible for the spec lost their minds.
The two issues I saw were Bluetooth is based on a frequency hopping radio using a dated low performance modulation scheme. The only nice thing you could say is potentially you can build really low power radio's using that design. However that brings up the second issues, a very complicated kitchen sink base band which requires a complex software stack and power hungry processor to support it. There goes your low power, out the window. (I think there were about 20 companies trying to design low power Bluetooth transceivers circa 2000-2003, most of them never could get the power low enough or a working stack)
Hardware design issues aside, frequency hoppers have insurmountable quality of service issues for most applications. Professionally I don't think this is fixable.
They would have been better off doing the following three things.
1. Define a low speed point to point oriented modulation scheme that can be supported by 802.11 radio front ends. Probably could have implemented this as a sub-band of some sort.
2. A direct sequence spread spectrum physical layer for USB. Advantage of that is the USB stack mostly works as USB had a 10 year head start and more resources than the Bluetooth alliance ever had, or will have. If one thinks a stack like USB is 'easy' consider Microsoft had to redesign theirs three or four times.
3. Dedicated DSSS wireless headphone spec. Seriously this was the original design goal and was totally achievable until the committee responsible for the spec lost their minds.
The USB emulation thing is interesting. Unfortunately, most USB implementations are disasters, too.
Don't get me started on security. BT is probably a festering pit of remote exploits and vendor backdoors.
Don't get me started on security. BT is probably a festering pit of remote exploits and vendor backdoors.
> That's just gratuitously negative and dismissive
That's the point. If you want a heavily opinionated summary that will likely inflame a fair portion of people, Gruber is your man.
That's the point. If you want a heavily opinionated summary that will likely inflame a fair portion of people, Gruber is your man.
> sound quality is flawless;
I have a headset that supports Bluetooth 3 only and audio quality is bad (especially while making calls where it chooses the HFP profile which is the only one where the mic is available).
I vouched to never again buy any Bluetooth audio devices. Are you saying Bluetooth 4 would actually solve my problem? Should I still have hope?
I have a headset that supports Bluetooth 3 only and audio quality is bad (especially while making calls where it chooses the HFP profile which is the only one where the mic is available).
I vouched to never again buy any Bluetooth audio devices. Are you saying Bluetooth 4 would actually solve my problem? Should I still have hope?
>Are you saying Bluetooth 4 would actually solve my problem
Make sure your headset and device (phone?) both support HFP1.6 or above (which supports wideband speech/HD voice) which makes the sound quality semi-decent
Make sure your headset and device (phone?) both support HFP1.6 or above (which supports wideband speech/HD voice) which makes the sound quality semi-decent
Isn't this a problem with anything wireless in general? WiFi is also plagued with connection issues, inexplicable dropouts, and slowdowns.
With Bluetooth in particular it seems like there are a lot of poor implementations (if it's rock solid or buggy seems to have to do with which two devices you're using ) - maybe they would benefit from a more stringent conformity licensing process.
With Bluetooth in particular it seems like there are a lot of poor implementations (if it's rock solid or buggy seems to have to do with which two devices you're using ) - maybe they would benefit from a more stringent conformity licensing process.
I think there are two problems, one yes wireless is 'bad' You can think.
1. Reliable 2. Cheap 3. Low power
Pick no more than two. Bluetooth was originally designed to be cheap and low power.
The other problem is networking is complicated, and then throwing device API's on top of that makes it very hard to get right. USB had lots of issues originally. And once you leave standard devices like, keyboards, mice, and mass storage devices it gets iffy real quick. (Go scan through the libUSB mailing list archives sometime)
1. Reliable 2. Cheap 3. Low power
Pick no more than two. Bluetooth was originally designed to be cheap and low power.
The other problem is networking is complicated, and then throwing device API's on top of that makes it very hard to get right. USB had lots of issues originally. And once you leave standard devices like, keyboards, mice, and mass storage devices it gets iffy real quick. (Go scan through the libUSB mailing list archives sometime)
The stringent licensing is the reason why thunderbolt 3 is dead.
If it were anyone else this would be flagged as blogspam. Sometimes he can bring insight, but these Tweet-like posts don't add anything to the conversation.
who is he?
[deleted]
John Gruber is an Apple fanboy who somehow makes a lot of money from his blog. And invented Markdown formatting.
But will it constantly fail to connect to devices it has been paired with a million times before?
Don't know how I could live without that "feature".
Don't know how I could live without that "feature".
Can't wait for nearby ads[1] to hit me from a far larger distance in the future.
[1] https://developers.google.com/nearby/
[1] https://developers.google.com/nearby/
Yeah...
I think nearby is a really cool idea for many things, but I don't know if it is worth all of the notifications I will have to ignore from every billboard I walk by.
I think nearby is a really cool idea for many things, but I don't know if it is worth all of the notifications I will have to ignore from every billboard I walk by.
What does bluetooth not require support for multiple simultaneous devices. Have more than one device that won't let you connect more than one at a time.
I think it's a bandwidth issue. If I use bluetooth mouse, keyboard, and headphones at the same time, the mouse becomes very sluggish. It works totally fine if I turn off either the keyboard or the headphone.
I suspect that comes down to the protocol used.
I had no problem connecting a keyboard and phone (as modem) to a N800 back in the day, while also playing music from the phone to a pair of bluetooth headphones. But that was if i used PAN For the data connection between N800 and phone.
If i used DUN, either the music or the data would occasionally skip.
And that may well be what gives Bluetooth its reputation. So many choices for the various OEMs in terms of protocols/profiles, on top of a more complex air interface (channel hopping).
Given all of it, one may well be better off comparing Bluetooth to USB than wifi. As wifi is Ethernet over a single radio channel.
I had no problem connecting a keyboard and phone (as modem) to a N800 back in the day, while also playing music from the phone to a pair of bluetooth headphones. But that was if i used PAN For the data connection between N800 and phone.
If i used DUN, either the music or the data would occasionally skip.
And that may well be what gives Bluetooth its reputation. So many choices for the various OEMs in terms of protocols/profiles, on top of a more complex air interface (channel hopping).
Given all of it, one may well be better off comparing Bluetooth to USB than wifi. As wifi is Ethernet over a single radio channel.
The standard does support multiple simultaneous devices.
Your hardware? Not always.
Your hardware? Not always.
In theory, the Bluetooth protocol supports up to 7 devices connected simultaneously as slaves to one master device. However in practice, hardware support may be less than this.
Oh anecdotes.
Use Bluetooth home spekaers, headphones and car radio all the time against my iPhone 6S - works really well.
What I do though is manually connect when I want this particular device to be connected (say my headphones in the gym), and then disconnect after use.
Might be magic trick most are missing.
Use Bluetooth home spekaers, headphones and car radio all the time against my iPhone 6S - works really well.
What I do though is manually connect when I want this particular device to be connected (say my headphones in the gym), and then disconnect after use.
Might be magic trick most are missing.
With all the Bluetooth car hacking going on and with the emergence of "connected cars" and self-driving cars, you'd think they would've introduced some stronger security features for Bluetooth 5.0 as well.
- 1.0 to 1.2: Hard to pair, and very unreliable. First major version, I'm sure they'll fix it...
- 2.0: More bandwidth. Still hard to pair, still unreliable.
- 2.1: Adds "Simple Secure Pairing". Still hard to actually pair. Still unreliable.
- 3.0: More bandwidth. More features. Still hard to pair, still unreliable.
- 4.0: Bluetooth Low Energy released. Still hard to pair, still unreliable.
- 4.1: More features. Still hard to pair, still unreliable.
- 4.2: More features. Still hard to pair, still unreliable.
- 5.0: More range, more bandwidth. Still hard to pair, still unreliable.
I have the latest Apple "Magic" Trackpad, hooked up to a Mac Pro. At least once a day, latency will take a dive, or it will completely disconnect. I have to turn the trackpad on and off repeatedly, to see if it will finally re-pair by itself. No other recourse, you can't easily access bluetooth settings on a mac with only a keyboard. (Which I made sure to get with a USB plug, since my last bluetooth keyboard had the same issues.)
I also have a Samsung Level BT headset, paired with a Samsung Note 5 phone. I can listen to Google Music or Player.fm for between 1 and 10 minutes until the headset will suddenly blast noise at full volume, and become unresponsive until I turn it off and back on again. Left my ears ringing on more than one occasion.
I've replaced my "magic" keyboard with a USB one, and recently hooked the trackpad back up via USB. I've stopped using the Samsung Level and went back to an old pair of headphones with a 3.5mm plug (that Apple is now trying to get rid of.)
I had a past without wires. I am moving to a future with them.