Comment by amelius 1 month ago Honestly, can't we just ditch BT and send audio over WiFi?One thing less to worry about. 9 comments amelius Reply cloudfudge 1 month ago "Just use wifi for headphones"and"One less thing to worry about"These are not compatible statements. :) wolvoleo 1 month ago WiFi is nowhere near as low energy as Bluetooth is. michaelt 1 month ago If you think wireless headphones are insecure today, I very much doubt connecting them directly to the internet would improve the situation. theteapot 1 month ago AFAIK Wifi Direct has quite wide hardware support -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Direct. But few people know about it? amelius 1 month ago WiFi does not necessarily mean it's connected to the internet. mrheosuper 1 month ago and enjoy your precious 1 hour of listening time.The whole tcp/ip, wifi stack is at least a magnitude more complex than bluetooth one, and the wifi radio generally consumes more power. Namidairo 1 month ago Qualcomm kind of does this with their XPAN extension, sends the audio over local network. I believe it's mostly a proprietary solution though, so I haven't seen any serious attempts to re-implement it yet. girvo 1 month ago That exists, using proprietary 2.4ghz dongles usually, but they’re much higher power draw. a96 1 month ago And roughly zero security.
cloudfudge 1 month ago "Just use wifi for headphones"and"One less thing to worry about"These are not compatible statements. :)
michaelt 1 month ago If you think wireless headphones are insecure today, I very much doubt connecting them directly to the internet would improve the situation. theteapot 1 month ago AFAIK Wifi Direct has quite wide hardware support -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Direct. But few people know about it? amelius 1 month ago WiFi does not necessarily mean it's connected to the internet.
theteapot 1 month ago AFAIK Wifi Direct has quite wide hardware support -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Direct. But few people know about it?
mrheosuper 1 month ago and enjoy your precious 1 hour of listening time.The whole tcp/ip, wifi stack is at least a magnitude more complex than bluetooth one, and the wifi radio generally consumes more power.
Namidairo 1 month ago Qualcomm kind of does this with their XPAN extension, sends the audio over local network. I believe it's mostly a proprietary solution though, so I haven't seen any serious attempts to re-implement it yet.
girvo 1 month ago That exists, using proprietary 2.4ghz dongles usually, but they’re much higher power draw. a96 1 month ago And roughly zero security.
"Just use wifi for headphones"
and
"One less thing to worry about"
These are not compatible statements. :)
WiFi is nowhere near as low energy as Bluetooth is.
If you think wireless headphones are insecure today, I very much doubt connecting them directly to the internet would improve the situation.
AFAIK Wifi Direct has quite wide hardware support -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Direct. But few people know about it?
WiFi does not necessarily mean it's connected to the internet.
and enjoy your precious 1 hour of listening time.
The whole tcp/ip, wifi stack is at least a magnitude more complex than bluetooth one, and the wifi radio generally consumes more power.
Qualcomm kind of does this with their XPAN extension, sends the audio over local network. I believe it's mostly a proprietary solution though, so I haven't seen any serious attempts to re-implement it yet.
That exists, using proprietary 2.4ghz dongles usually, but they’re much higher power draw.
And roughly zero security.