|
|
|
|
|
by foobarian
1404 days ago
|
|
I worked a bunch with BT closer to the physical layer, and I have to say I was always impressed by how well specified and implemented things were up to the link layer. I think it works fantastically well. But unfortunately it's an invisible achievement, kind of how IT folks don't get recognized when things work; instead when people say "Bluetooth sucks" it's usually due to poor app profile implementations/specs. As a result, saying "let's invent a better Bluetooth" contains a hidden trap: it requires reinventing that really good core, which is probably really expensive, which then would not leave much to build better app profiles and we would end up with a similar problem. We should not be inventing a better Bluetooth but fixing the app profile certification. I'm not sure what the right solution there is. |
|
Devices all have bluetooth chips already, which is probably the hardest part of adoption.
Then you can define a new system on top, and even swap out the bottom if this new "red tooth" catches on.
Ofc you still have a massive uphill battle, particularly getting manufacturers to agree to a more sane spec than what we have currently (which I wouldn't hold my breath on, that's for sure)