5 ms·
I mean, I'm sure there's worse out there.. but the fact that I have to wait for my phone to connected via bluetooth before I can turn on my lights is such bad U
by johtso 3y ago
I mean, I'm sure there's worse out there.. but the fact that I have to wait for my phone to connected via bluetooth before I can turn on my lights is such bad UX, often taking multiple attempts to connect to all the lights.
Just let me flick the switch, and then turn the lights on as and when you manage to successfully connect, don't make me wait.
- AnotherGoodName 3y agoUhh you can just flick the light switch off and on and it takes that as a signal to turn on.
- slickdork 3y agoI don't understand your use flow there. I have a hue bridge with a static ip in my house that controls my lights. Management through a third party app is instant. Are you individually connecting to each light through Bluetooth?
- xxpor 3y agoConnecting over BT is the worst possible way. If you really want to make heavy use of the bulbs you should really have a bridge and real remotes. Zigbee is much, much faster.
- jabroni_salad 3y agoYou are judging the Hue based on its worst mode of operation. Get yourself a zigbee bridge. It's nice that the BT function is there, as a failover, but day to day I would not rely on it.