[danuker]

How is WiFi so much more reliable than Bluetooth?

I installed a web server on my phone and send files this way much faster (and Android -> Apple works):

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.basov.lws.fdroid/

I wish there were a standard for streaming (headphones could connect to your network via WPS, and stream some canonical URL with no configuration needed).

[masklinn]

> How is WiFi so much more reliable than Bluetooth?

WiFi uses near 10x the power Bluetooth does when active (and that’s before factoring in BLE which cuts that down in half). WiFi also has access to the much less crowded 5GHz band.

IIRC WiFi is also a much simpler protocol, it’s just a data channel (its aim being to replace LAN cables).

Plus in order to support cheap and specialised devices Bluetooth supports all sorts of profiles and applications. This makes the devices simpler, and means all the configuration can be automated to pairing, but it makes the generic hosts a lot more complicated.

[Reventlov]

>IIRC WiFi is also a much simpler protocol, it’s just a data channel (its aim being to replace LAN cables).

I'm not sure what do you mean, but Wi-Fi covers the PHY layer and the MAC layers. It's not « only » a data channel. Modern Wi-Fi uses OFDMA, which is arguably more complex than what bluetooth uses (without even talking about the MAC).

[kortex]

I think WiFi is better abstracted and layer-delineated though. Wifi has a lot of complexity but it largely feels like necessary complexity, and the physical layer, data layer, and application layer all mostly stay in their lane. Bluetooth is a mishmash of accidental complexity with physical layer leaking data layer abstraction, and the application/data boundary is even more blurred. Instead of dumb pipes, you have to worry about codecs and the like, of which there are myriad vendor specific ones.

[jandrese]

Bluetooth is massively more complicated than WiFi. It has a whole service enumeration/discovery layer baked in that IMHO tried to cram way too much into the spec. Whats even more amazing is that some of the hardware vendors at the table during the development went "F that" and added some side channel audio stuff that bypassing most of the stack.

But mostly the problem is that too much of this complexity fell on hardware vendors and they suck at writing software. There are umpteen bajillion different bluetooth stacks out there and they're all buggy in new and exciting ways. Interoperability testing is hugely neglected by most vendors. The times where Bluetooth works well are typically where the same vendor controls both ends of the link, like Airpods on an iPhone.

In 2020 I tried buying some reputable brand Bluetooth headphones for my kids so they could do home-schooling without disturbing each other. It was a total failure. Every time their computer went to sleep the bluetooth stack would become out of sync and attempts to reconnect would result in just "error connecting" messages, requiring you to fully delete the bluetooth device on the Windows side and redo the entire discovery/association/connection from scratch. The bluetooth stack on Windows would crash halfway through the association process about half of the time forcing you to reboot the computer to start over. Absolutely unusable. I tried the same headphones on a Linux host and they worked slightly better, but were still prone to getting out of sync and requiring a full "forget this device" and add it again cycle every few days for no apparent reason.

[Reventlov]

> Bluetooth is massively more complicated than WiFi. It has a whole service enumeration/discovery layer baked in that IMHO tried to cram way too much into the spec. Whats even more amazing is that some of the hardware vendors at the table during the development went "F that" and added some side channel audio stuff that bypassing most of the stack.

I seriously think you underestimate the complexity in Wi-Fi networks. The 802.11 2020 standard is 4379 pages long. And i'm not even counting the amendments ( https://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm ) that are in development.

[rmckayfleming]

Yep, had a similar annoyance using my AirPods with my gaming laptop. The laptop wouldn't reconnect after going to sleep for an extended period of time. I ended up replacing the stock wireless card for an Intel AX210 based one and then it was fine.

[411111111111111]

WiFi supposedly needs more power and has higher latency. Not sure how true that remains post WiFi6 though

[pletnes]

Range and bandwidth is orders of magnitude larger, and both have direct limitations in terms of energy budget.