4 ms·

> If you want to avoid Apple, then you're up to the will of N vendors want to try to solve the problem their own way, so... Isn’t this the whole idea of having

by harha 4y ago

> If you want to avoid Apple, then you're up to the will of N vendors want to try to solve the problem their own way, so... Isn’t this the whole idea of having a standard? > For Apple, the key feature is iCloud. Your headphone bluetooth information is stored in iCloud, so any headphones that have been paired with one device, are paired with all other devices. The pairing itself, while a bit annoying isn’t the whole problem, it’s having to connect and disconnect all the time and sometimes pair again. Now I’m not sure how iCloud is necessary for this, the device should already know my regular devices (in fact I think one of the headphones I have can be paired to nine devices, but only connect to two at the same time). The annoying thing is that it stays connected to devices I don’t use, e.g., the closed laptop, the desktop I’m not even logged in on or a different user is actively using. In an ideal world it would connect to all and figure out what to play. In an ok world I’m fine with it always connecting to my iPhone and the other device I’m actively using.

mbreese 4y ago
> Now I’m not sure how iCloud is necessary for this, the device should already know my regular devices It isn’t the headphones that have the issue. AFAICT, it’s that your devices aren’t releasing the headphones from the connection. For this, you require coordination between your phone and tablet. The headphones can just be along for the ride. Your devices try to keep their connection as stable as possible. If your tablet doesn’t know your phone now wants to play a video, why would your tablet disconnect from the headphones? Maybe it isn’t iCloud that does this (but iCloud definitely stores the Bluetooth ids so you only have to setup the headphones once). But there is some OOB communication between the devices. This is the Apple secret sauce and why they can have the feature, but other vendors struggle.
- harha 4y ago
  Ah I think now I get it: Say I'm connected to devices A and B. Now C starts playing something, so via iCloud through one of the connected devices, the headphones get the message to disconnect and connect to C. So A, B, C need to be connected to some server, otherwise they won't have the information on the state of A, B and C and to take actions to connect or disconnect. Now one alternative would be to have two Bluetooth controllers to stay connected to four devices, but that would increase size and battery consumption. Another would be to periodically rotate connections to idle devices, but that risks not being connected when needed. If I were designing this, I'd make some sort of a "partial connection", not the full protocol that sends audio, but something that can broadcast to previously connected devices that triggers a full connection.

by harha 4y ago

mbreese 4y ago

> Now I’m not sure how iCloud is necessary for this, the device should already know my regular devices It isn’t the headphones that have the issue. AFAICT, it’s that your devices aren’t releasing the headphones from the connection. For this, you require coordination between your phone and tablet. The headphones can just be along for the ride. Your devices try to keep their connection as stable as possible. If your tablet doesn’t know your phone now wants to play a video, why would your tablet disconnect from the headphones? Maybe it isn’t iCloud that does this (but iCloud definitely stores the Bluetooth ids so you only have to setup the headphones once). But there is some OOB communication between the devices. This is the Apple secret sauce and why they can have the feature, but other vendors struggle.

harha 4y ago
Ah I think now I get it: Say I'm connected to devices A and B. Now C starts playing something, so via iCloud through one of the connected devices, the headphones get the message to disconnect and connect to C. So A, B, C need to be connected to some server, otherwise they won't have the information on the state of A, B and C and to take actions to connect or disconnect. Now one alternative would be to have two Bluetooth controllers to stay connected to four devices, but that would increase size and battery consumption. Another would be to periodically rotate connections to idle devices, but that risks not being connected when needed. If I were designing this, I'd make some sort of a "partial connection", not the full protocol that sends audio, but something that can broadcast to previously connected devices that triggers a full connection.