Slashdot Mirror
Bluetooth 5 Is Here (betanews.com)
Reader BrianFagioli writes: Today, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group announces the official adoption of the previously-announced Bluetooth 5. In other words, it is officially the next major version of the technology, which will eventually be found in many consumer devices. So, will you start to see Bluetooth 5 devices and dongles with faster speeds and longer range in stores tomorrow? Nope -- sorry, folks. Consumers will have to wait until 2017. The Bluetooth SIG says devices should become available between February and June next year.In a statement, Bluetooth SIG reminded the specifications of Bluetooth 5 -- "Key feature updates include four times range, two times speed, and eight times broadcast message capacity. Longer range powers whole home and building coverage, for more robust and reliable connections."
Longer range powers whole home and building coverage, for more robust and reliable connections.
It's like he is >implying we don't have practically ubiquitous WiFi coverage.
With the new standard will my battery life be more than 5 minutes?
If it gives me better wireless audio, I'm all for it. Else, it's a gimmick, as I can surely count on one hand the number of times I used Bluetooth (PS3/4 accessories included).
http://lifehacker.com/does-bluetooth-audio-still-suck-1505063323
NT
Dongles....
NT?
Just what we've all been clamoring for in our technical standards right?
Do not want.
... needs to die. Please tell me they have scrapped it and replaced it with a proper, scaling bandwidth, full duplex, multichannel audio distribution protocol.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
So whats the point? I have never owed a Blue Tooth device. I did programming over teletype in the early 1970's. I've got that going for me. Concern factor = zero.
entee
Unfortunately for BT the software stacks will still suck.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
It was the last of the Bluetooth standards. The name of the thing was Bluetooth 5. /No apologies.
So, another 24 days, then? I can wait...
Bluetooth audio should finally sound like a cable was used, instead of the existing weakened dynamic range, which removes any "punch" from mucic.
I mean where I can pair a set of headphones to, say, a phone and a computer at the same time and get audio from both at the same time? Or send the audio from one device to multiple devices at the same time? Two headsets paired to one phone at once?
Is this a hardware restriction of the radios, a limitation of the BT protocol or just the retarded nature of the implementation?
Has longer range ever been a feature of new BT versions? Because I can tell you from experience that my BT 4.0 devices have a much shorter usable range than BT 2.1.
Hey cool, maybe my fucking car stereo won't constantly drop, forget or fail to find my phone all the time.
> it is hidden for other wireless tech devices like mice etc that don't use Bluetooth, simply because you don't see the network selection and authentication doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If you can't see it, and don't know what standards are used, don't assume there is any authentication or confidentially. I can eavesdrop on wireless keyboards sold by Microsoft and other companies.
So... Bluetooth 5 is not Here, then.
authentication and confidentiality are not the same thing. you can authenticate to a HTTP website, it doesn't mean you can talk securely after that. You should not be using wireless (even secured wifi) in places where you are at risk of the signal being monitored when dealing with information that requires security.
Well, now we know what the flagship feature will be for the 2021 model iPhone. Plus model only, of course.
Confidentially and authentication go together because over the network you can't have confidentiality without authentication. You have to know whether or not you're talking to a man-in-the-middle.
Considering the removal of the headphone jack, surely this would have been a nice olive branch to say they have the latest and greatest.
Plus they generally adopt new tech very quickly
I came to the comments to find out how this rapes my privacy and makes my devices less secure in new and exciting ways... like virtually every new protocol or standard seams to in some way.
nothing? really?
I just want my phone to connect to my car reliably!
You must be buying cheap shit. Granted, I've got two use cases, but my sony S10-HD headphones work at least 40 feet in the gym (drop the ipod on top of the weight rack) and work all the way to a water fountain behind 2 walls and about 35 feet. The second use case is the panasonic cordless phone, and as soon as I pull into the garage, both the wife's evil iphone any my old samsung phone pair with the cordless phone's base station that's behind 4 walls LOS and work just fine. It's actually a pain in the ass, because we can't tell whether she left her phone in the car or brought it into the house when she routinely uses it.
bluetooth range is fine. if I wanted WiFi range, I'd use WiFi. I'm guessing your phone really, really fucking sucks or that you dropped your headphones and broke the antenna off the radio.
NT
If 'very quickly' means 'before it comes out' i think your standards are maybe a bit too high. Even Apple cant buy a time machine
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
jony ive and her butthole buddies have tapped into another victim technology. OMG
**Any** real security?
Seriously. Any?
BT security has been a joke all this time.
I have yet to find a use for BLUETOOTH in the first 4 version. Now there is 5.
Bad WiFi impletions are the standard. With IoT making it worst by the day,
1) ChromeCast will only work with other devices on the same CCSID, not subnet.
2) Roku omly can talk 5GHz or 2.4Ghz, again not subnet.
3) Plex server will support multiple IP, but the clients using Plex server's information are told of both but only use the first one, not the one for the subnet it is on.
Why have poor to bad implementations? What a drag on user and their pocketbooks.
> public key from a website to encrypt your information too it
The reason that the web site's public key is signed by a party you trust, such as VeriSign, is to authenticate the web site. Without authentication, the public key you use to encrypt your bank transfer might be the bad guy's key, or it might be my my key, rather than the bank's key.
Without authentication, you don't know who you're securely sending your information TO. Authentication allows you tell the difference between these three scenarios:
You -> Bank
You -> Me -> Bank
You -> Me
So on the subway will I be able to cook my processed food meal with a peer to peer Bluetooth microwave???