18 ms·
Being a software developer, I keep seeing bluetooth audio as a Rube Goldberg machine. It's using a battery that you have to keep charged, a lot of software, mul
by grishka 5y ago
Being a software developer, I keep seeing bluetooth audio as a Rube Goldberg machine. It's using a battery that you have to keep charged, a lot of software, multiple CPUs, lossy codecs, forward error correction, and an entire stack of mind-bogglingly complex protocols (that no one has ever implemented 100% correctly) that run over an inherently unreliable medium so what? So you don't have to untangle the wire? It never made sense to me. I've never really taken bluetooth seriously. To me, it's a tradeoff that I just don't see ever making. I don't trust software this much. I also prefer something that's easy to troubleshoot when things go wrong.
- saagarjha 5y agoWait until you see how Wi-Fi and cellular work.
- grishka 5y agoI know how Wi-Fi works, and how it sometimes doesn't, and this is why I'm using ethernet whenever possible. Cellular operates in a much more controlled environment with more stringent certification, it's much more reliable for me than anything 2.4 GHz, but it does still get frustrating at times. The lack of requirement of a low delay also helps both wifi and cellular I guess.
- xeyownt 5y agoExactly. If I had to score reliability, I would give 1 to WiFi, 10 to Bluetooth, one million to cellular and ten million to cable. It's incredible how much better cellular works compared to other wireless "techno", but nothing replaces a cable.
- aksss 5y agoYet BT just “works” hitting 80% of expectations, 80% of the time. That’s why the solutions sell.