6 ms·

> Dongles. Even though all computers now have built-in Bluetooth, many Bluetooth accessories today still ship with proprietary dongles. I assume this is because

> Dongles. Even though all computers now have built-in Bluetooth, many Bluetooth accessories today still ship with proprietary dongles. I assume this is because the manufacturer was worried about inconsistencies or incompatibilities between their own Bluetooth implementation and your computer’s built-in Bluetooth hardware/drivers. I've never seen this before. Is the author mistaking proprietary 2.4 GHz receivers (that do not use Bluetooth) for OEMs' "own Bluetooth implementation"? They refer to swapping between built-in Bluetooth and the dongle, which sounds like Logitech's line of dual-mode keyboards that can use either Bluetooth or Logitech's proprietary "unifying receiver," which is based on Nordic Semiconductor's nRF24L, not Bluetooth.

cecja 6y ago
Yeah, he doesn't really seem to know about what he is talking about. Looks like an Wikipedia essay to gaslight himself.
izacus 6y ago
What the author means: if you ever worked with actual Bluetooth you'll see that it's full of insane quirks and vendor bugs. This opens up the risk that your product will be seen as bad because the user has a crappy BT chipset in their computer. Just see the debate about Bluetooth headphone latency here on HN: even engineers don't realise that experience is very much dependant on what kind of chipset they have on BOTH sides. This is why manufacturers build their own 2.4GHz proprietary dongles using proprietary protocols - it ensures consistency for the users.
- delusional 6y ago
  Supposedly the drivers are also full of hacks. Blacklists and Whitelists for which devices actually support certain features. A device might say it supports a specific codec, but then when the phone starts streaming audio it causes the headset to lock up. It's a bunch of hacks all hacking around the other hacks.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  > it's full of insane quirks and vendor bugs As someone not familiar at the low level, can somebody explain how this can still be happening today? Are there not libraries that help ensure proper implementation? I really don't understand.
  - lukeschlather 6y ago
    Not an expert in this kind of low-level stuff, but bluetooth is mostly implemented in hardware. I don't imagine you could get a compact lightweight headset that can last 10 hours on a charge if it needed to run even something as lightweight as a C library. And obviously, you can forget something like Airpods.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      Are you basing this off of an assumption or do you have a source?
    - TickleSteve 6y ago
      No, bluetooth is pretty much entirely in software. I say that as someone who has worked on Bluetooth devices at CSR/Qualcomm. Embedded software quite routinely runs hours on batteries. Indeed, some (entirely software) devices, last many years.
  - db48x 6y ago
    Hardware makers basically can't write good software.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      That doesn't explain why Bluetooth is the protocol that causing the most trouble. Proprietary 2.4Ghz devices appear to work just fine.
      - db48x 6y ago
        A Bluetooth device is much more complex than the proprietary wireless devices. The complexity is largely because Bluetooth hardware must support many different types of devices all with differing requirements. A proprietary keyboard dongle doesn't have to be able to deal with the audio traffic coming from a microphone or going to a headset. Furthermore, it doesn't have to support proper identification and authorization of each individual device; many of them will accept input from any compatible keyboard that happens to be near by.
- wojciii 6y ago
  The BT protocols are quite complicated and therefore the different implementations will be full of quirks IMHO. Try debugging an audio BT issue on a phone and you will see the amount of complexity. Interoperability is tested, but not in an organized way and not repeatably - AFAIK 3 different teams are supposed to check that a new protocol works against each other. The different vendors verify their BT implementations but not against each other. That would be expensive, I guess. The firmware in BT devices can also use a number of hacks which are not breaking the spirit of the specs as such .. and this is not being tested. On top of this often BT and WiFi has to work together (shared antenna) and this means that BT will not get all the time it needs but a percentage based on what Wi-Fi is doing at the time. I try to use Ethernet every time I get the chance.
c2h5oh 6y ago
Bluetooth implementations are so stupidly quirky I can totally see proprietary dongles as being required to guarantee connectivity. Fitbit won't pair with my phone, but works OK with my wife's and my tablet. Garmin fitness tracker syncs with all 3 devices, but will stop syncing with my wife's phone within 2-3 days and will need to be paired again.. My bluetooth headphones work with my phone and my wife's phone, but not my tablet. Every 6 months or so I still have to use a paperclip to reset the headphones to be able to re-pair them with my phone after they stop working for no reason. I've seen similar problems with phones I've owned before.
- taneq 6y ago
  Another example of this is with 'Windows Mixed Reality' VR headsets. The controllers connect with the computer via Bluetooth and will often be noticeably laggy or unreliable when using onboard Bluetooth due to interference from other devices on the motherboard. Switching to an external Bluetooth dongle on a USB extension cable results in significantly improved controller tracking, and this issue is partly to blame for the poor reputation of WMR controller tracking.
  - bathtub365 6y ago
    I suspect that's one of the reasons Valve put a Bluetooth receiver inside the original Vive headset.
    - m-ee 6y ago
      They also didn't use it to connect to the controllers. They used two nRF24L01 transceivers which use Nordic's proprietary shockburst protocol. Easier to set up and better latency.
    - taneq 6y ago
      Yeah, the second-gen[1] Samsung Odyssey+ headset likewise has a built-in dedicated receiver in the headset and it's a significant improvement over the first gen. (I like the first gen better in practically every other way though.) [1] There's much debate about what 'first gen', 'second gen' actually mean in terms of VR, I just mean it's Samsung's second WMR model after the Odyssey HMD.
jwr 6y ago
I think the author might not know that the dongles that Logitech ships are not Bluetooth. They use Nordic's nrf24L01 chips, which run a much simpler protocol, very fast and robust for simple communications. I use a Logitech MX Master, and while I do enjoy its Bluetooth capability (for laptops), I use a dongle with my desktop, which results in zero latency, no stuttering, and perfect synchronization.
- Legogris 6y ago
  I think this differs per keyboard. The dongle of my Logitech diNovo Edge is Bluetooth.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Right. Those old diNovos are a nightmare as well and not only did they ship with their own Bluetooth adapter but required you to install their driver which would install its own Bluetooth stack (the Broadcom one and they used to use I think BlueSoleil before that) over the Microsoft one. I still have nightmares about those things failing to pair constantly.
    - Legogris 6y ago
      It's many years ago so may be inaccurate, but I remember the dongle being the one stable solution. With the onboard BT of a raspberry pi on Ubuntu (or was it Raspbian?), recurring issues. With the dongle, perfectly stable, and IIRC no drivers not in the mainline repos.
- anilakar 6y ago
  Then there's also Bluetooth Low Energy, which is Bluetooth only in name and mandated in the 5.0 version. Apparently most news products use BLE instead of BT, unless they use a well-known profile for say, audio or game controller accessories.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  I think the primary culprit is the power management on both the host and client I have an MX Master and a K380. The MX Master has a noticeable lag in Bluetooth and both will have a noticable delay when first used after a period of inactivity before springing to life. The K380 seems to have a key buffer to mitigate the delay. If however I have my Bluetooth headphones powered on and active to the host, keeping the bt radio active, most of the issues go away.
cbsmith 6y ago
The reality is that if you poke yourself out of the Mac & laptop world, there's plenty of desktop computers without integrated Bluetooth support, and Bluetooth <-> USB adapters are pretty cheap, so vendors usually ship with one bundled to ensure they don't have to deal with tech support issues from people thinking they have Bluetooth support in their computer when they don't.

cecja 6y ago

Yeah, he doesn't really seem to know about what he is talking about. Looks like an Wikipedia essay to gaslight himself.

izacus 6y ago

What the author means: if you ever worked with actual Bluetooth you'll see that it's full of insane quirks and vendor bugs. This opens up the risk that your product will be seen as bad because the user has a crappy BT chipset in their computer. Just see the debate about Bluetooth headphone latency here on HN: even engineers don't realise that experience is very much dependant on what kind of chipset they have on BOTH sides. This is why manufacturers build their own 2.4GHz proprietary dongles using proprietary protocols - it ensures consistency for the users.

delusional 6y ago
Supposedly the drivers are also full of hacks. Blacklists and Whitelists for which devices actually support certain features. A device might say it supports a specific codec, but then when the phone starts streaming audio it causes the headset to lock up. It's a bunch of hacks all hacking around the other hacks.
hanniabu 6y ago
> it's full of insane quirks and vendor bugs As someone not familiar at the low level, can somebody explain how this can still be happening today? Are there not libraries that help ensure proper implementation? I really don't understand.
- lukeschlather 6y ago
  Not an expert in this kind of low-level stuff, but bluetooth is mostly implemented in hardware. I don't imagine you could get a compact lightweight headset that can last 10 hours on a charge if it needed to run even something as lightweight as a C library. And obviously, you can forget something like Airpods.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    Are you basing this off of an assumption or do you have a source?
  - TickleSteve 6y ago
    No, bluetooth is pretty much entirely in software. I say that as someone who has worked on Bluetooth devices at CSR/Qualcomm. Embedded software quite routinely runs hours on batteries. Indeed, some (entirely software) devices, last many years.
- db48x 6y ago
  Hardware makers basically can't write good software.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    That doesn't explain why Bluetooth is the protocol that causing the most trouble. Proprietary 2.4Ghz devices appear to work just fine.
    - db48x 6y ago
      A Bluetooth device is much more complex than the proprietary wireless devices. The complexity is largely because Bluetooth hardware must support many different types of devices all with differing requirements. A proprietary keyboard dongle doesn't have to be able to deal with the audio traffic coming from a microphone or going to a headset. Furthermore, it doesn't have to support proper identification and authorization of each individual device; many of them will accept input from any compatible keyboard that happens to be near by.
wojciii 6y ago
The BT protocols are quite complicated and therefore the different implementations will be full of quirks IMHO. Try debugging an audio BT issue on a phone and you will see the amount of complexity. Interoperability is tested, but not in an organized way and not repeatably - AFAIK 3 different teams are supposed to check that a new protocol works against each other. The different vendors verify their BT implementations but not against each other. That would be expensive, I guess. The firmware in BT devices can also use a number of hacks which are not breaking the spirit of the specs as such .. and this is not being tested. On top of this often BT and WiFi has to work together (shared antenna) and this means that BT will not get all the time it needs but a percentage based on what Wi-Fi is doing at the time. I try to use Ethernet every time I get the chance.

c2h5oh 6y ago

Bluetooth implementations are so stupidly quirky I can totally see proprietary dongles as being required to guarantee connectivity. Fitbit won't pair with my phone, but works OK with my wife's and my tablet. Garmin fitness tracker syncs with all 3 devices, but will stop syncing with my wife's phone within 2-3 days and will need to be paired again.. My bluetooth headphones work with my phone and my wife's phone, but not my tablet. Every 6 months or so I still have to use a paperclip to reset the headphones to be able to re-pair them with my phone after they stop working for no reason. I've seen similar problems with phones I've owned before.

taneq 6y ago
Another example of this is with 'Windows Mixed Reality' VR headsets. The controllers connect with the computer via Bluetooth and will often be noticeably laggy or unreliable when using onboard Bluetooth due to interference from other devices on the motherboard. Switching to an external Bluetooth dongle on a USB extension cable results in significantly improved controller tracking, and this issue is partly to blame for the poor reputation of WMR controller tracking.
- bathtub365 6y ago
  I suspect that's one of the reasons Valve put a Bluetooth receiver inside the original Vive headset.
  - m-ee 6y ago
    They also didn't use it to connect to the controllers. They used two nRF24L01 transceivers which use Nordic's proprietary shockburst protocol. Easier to set up and better latency.
  - taneq 6y ago
    Yeah, the second-gen[1] Samsung Odyssey+ headset likewise has a built-in dedicated receiver in the headset and it's a significant improvement over the first gen. (I like the first gen better in practically every other way though.) [1] There's much debate about what 'first gen', 'second gen' actually mean in terms of VR, I just mean it's Samsung's second WMR model after the Odyssey HMD.

jwr 6y ago

I think the author might not know that the dongles that Logitech ships are not Bluetooth. They use Nordic's nrf24L01 chips, which run a much simpler protocol, very fast and robust for simple communications. I use a Logitech MX Master, and while I do enjoy its Bluetooth capability (for laptops), I use a dongle with my desktop, which results in zero latency, no stuttering, and perfect synchronization.

Legogris 6y ago
I think this differs per keyboard. The dongle of my Logitech diNovo Edge is Bluetooth.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Right. Those old diNovos are a nightmare as well and not only did they ship with their own Bluetooth adapter but required you to install their driver which would install its own Bluetooth stack (the Broadcom one and they used to use I think BlueSoleil before that) over the Microsoft one. I still have nightmares about those things failing to pair constantly.
  - Legogris 6y ago
    It's many years ago so may be inaccurate, but I remember the dongle being the one stable solution. With the onboard BT of a raspberry pi on Ubuntu (or was it Raspbian?), recurring issues. With the dongle, perfectly stable, and IIRC no drivers not in the mainline repos.
anilakar 6y ago
Then there's also Bluetooth Low Energy, which is Bluetooth only in name and mandated in the 5.0 version. Apparently most news products use BLE instead of BT, unless they use a well-known profile for say, audio or game controller accessories.
cptskippy 6y ago
I think the primary culprit is the power management on both the host and client I have an MX Master and a K380. The MX Master has a noticeable lag in Bluetooth and both will have a noticable delay when first used after a period of inactivity before springing to life. The K380 seems to have a key buffer to mitigate the delay. If however I have my Bluetooth headphones powered on and active to the host, keeping the bt radio active, most of the issues go away.

cbsmith 6y ago

The reality is that if you poke yourself out of the Mac & laptop world, there's plenty of desktop computers without integrated Bluetooth support, and Bluetooth <-> USB adapters are pretty cheap, so vendors usually ship with one bundled to ensure they don't have to deal with tech support issues from people thinking they have Bluetooth support in their computer when they don't.