I'm skeptical about all the claims and 60% less power consumption. Usually to get greater range, you need to up the power consumption. I'm not a bluetooth/electromagnetic spectrum expert though, so maybe they figured something out with the modulation or something.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
49 points (75.8% liked)
Technology
71502 readers
4302 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Seems really light on details. I couldn't find anything searching around and find these numbers hard to believe. I feel like it'll be something like you can have 60% lower power OR this other claim but not all the claims at the same time.
Smells like marketing.
There's already different classes of BT. The common class used for most that is the 30 feet, another that's around 5 feet, and one that's like 200 feet.
But all of the claims seem farfetched. The range, power, and latency? Like they suddenly came up with all new tech that decimates BT that astoundingly? All while they're trying to BS themselves around about the tech ban not harming them?
Yeah, it's probably just BS.
So this is not too hard to achieve if you chose different frequency. But few things to consider.
- 60% lower power consumption: doable since they don't have backwards compatibility baggage, but still questionable figure;
- six time transmission speed: achievable on higher frequency;
- 1/30th of the latency: same on higher frequency;
- 7dB improved: if no one is using the frequency yet, this is true;
- twice the coverage: complete bullshit if you have six times transmission speed. In wireless communication speed almost always equals lower range because only one device can talk at a time;
- 10 times more network connections: not with twice the coverage.
But, there's a huge number of issues and questions no one mentioned. Support at this point is literally zero, even if they push some devices with it, compatibility with your other devices is non-existent. Is the frequency approved across the world. There's a reason why 2.4GHz was chosen for base WIFI and Bluetooth. It's available everywhere. Is the standard open and how easily can one implement it. Software support, etc.
Well look at wifi vs bluetooth. Wifi and bluetooth both use 2.4ghz. But wifi has a lot more bandwidth on 2.4ghz. Maybe because it uses more channels (a bigger frequency range)?
But there is room to improve bandwidth, even over distance. Tho how would they have done that, no idea. There is need for more time so devices with the tech can arrive on the market, and be tested.
But also more time so more specialised content can be produced to inform us normal people.
WIFI has channels indeed and each channel has a higher bandwidth. But even then WIFI is close to same range as Bluetooth, at least in theory. WIFI routers are usually on 100mW or 150mW emission power. Bluetooth can get to these, but they almost always focus on power consumption rather than bandwidth and range. Not to mention with WIFI you have an array of antennas to chose from, amplifiers, etc.
Am almost always skeptical when new technology comes out. Look at ANT+ protocol, which was even popular at the time, but engineers switched to Bluetooth anyway. No matter how many issues you have with Bluetooth, its design is really easy to implement and program applications for.
This new protocol would have to bring quite a bit of benefits to both users and engineers to become really popular and dethrone Bluetooth. And even then I doubt it would happen as easily.
Well for it to get a chance in the US where the other side of big tech is, it would need to be sold to another company than Huawei, or for the US to relax the ban.
I have no idea why the US banned Huawei so intensely other than blocking competition from China.
I'm skeptical of any claims when they're only touted by the one selling it. I'll wait to see if it actually gets implemented anywhere and is verified by a third party.
Is this technology open source?
I mean I'm pretty sure I know the answer. Call me jaded...
I've never had a bluetooth device that worked well and connected reliably, so "better than bluetooth" is not hard.
Right. I care less about 60% less power, and more about will it randomly connect my phone to my car as my partner drives away instead to the speakers I was already using on the desk next to me.
That seems pretty interesting mix of the performance of Wifi with the more multi-connection side of Bluetooth. I have yet to see what would support it (or even if there is a generic protocol for things like headset, game controller, screen, remote, media player, etc), but it seems to be the missing technology for wireless haptic feedback controller on PC.
(edit: yes, joycon can do it, but it’s a special case where they does not pass raw audio)
But is the connection speed good and riable?
Shitty pairing or random reconnect slowness/issues have been my #1 complaint about Bluetooth for, oh, 15 years. It's only barely gotten better in all that time.
What I want is an experience like wired connections, where I just plug it in. Then it works. Immediately. Every time.
Even as quick/reliable as wifi would be ok.
I don't give a shit about things like speed. Just reliability and decent audio quality.
As long as it doesn't use the 2.4GHz band I'm fine with it. I'm so done with Audio stuttering while using WiFi.
You use 2.4GHz wifi?
I am sory for not living in a giant home without any 2.4ghz neighbors around me.
Also I myself use 2.4ghz for low bandwidth devices, and other connected devices which don't have 5ghz. And there are also the neighbors who cast their 2.4ghz network they may use how they will around me.
But I didn't have many issues on most of the headsets I tried. At least higher end.
There were still some outliers and with bad unreliable connections, even on high latency (jbl tour one m2 for example).
Others like corsair headsets had issues at "high" range (like 10-15m through walls), but no issues at close range, but that is expected from their specs.
We have both at home, but at school im stuck on 2.4
Most IoT devices still need it, and it's actually recommended for those for its better wall/floor penetrating ability, since a light bulb isn't going to need tons of bandwidth.
Pretty much all routers ISP give are 2.4 included so whether you want it or not you are surrounded by emissions at that frequency.
Mine from the ISP does wifi 6 over 5GHz... I still disabled the wifi in favour of a Unifi multi-AP config.
Even if you have skills and knowledge, people around you might not or simply don't care. I'd hazard a guess 2.4GHz spectrum is filled.
Bluetooth plus! Now with a CCP backdoor included!
This makes me somewhat hopeful for one day setting up a decent wireless surround sound in my living room.
Haven't checked in a while. Are there decent solutions today?