Why wireless peripherals don't use Bluetooth?

[sheh]

I find it very annoying that wireless peripherals such as mice, keyboards, etc., always come with their own proprietary USB doodad instead of just using common Bluetooth. Why would anyone want multiple USB receivers taking up ports, sticking out and getting in the way, and wasting some power on laptops, instead of using a common, usually internal and integrated, Bluetooth adapter?

Any idea why manufacturers do that?

 

[corkyg]

Bluetooth has many limitations making it a less capable technology for wireless use;
1. Much slower transfer rates than Wi-Fi or USB
2. Easier to hack than Wi-Fi or USB (Omnidirectional FR)
3. Eats up battery power faster than Wi-Fi or USB
4. BT can handle many fewer devices at once compared to USB

http://www.ehow.com/list_7162156_disadvantages-bluetooth-technology.html

 

[Stuka85]

just to make sure it works i think. if you have a third party Bluetooth dongle, you have to pair them and many people will get lost doing this set up.

Another thing to look is, that many third party bluetooth dongle just allow to connect 1 device at a time, so 1 usb Bluetooth dongle will not work for 2 or 3 devices.

 

[sheh]

1. Bluetooth provides enough bandwidth for input devices. Or you mean latency? If that's an issue, then yes, this is a problem for mice.

2. I'm not sure about the relative strength of BT2.1+ encryption, and who knows at all how good or bad the proprietary wireless protocols are, but if needed it's possible to add another encryption layer (will require manufacturer provided driver/software). Then again, early BT peripherals had no encryption at all and people didn't seem to care. Myself, even with the weak localized signal, I wouldn't do sensitive stuff over wireless, be it propietary or BT.

3. I have no problem with 3 months. It could be a month just as well. You just charge it up. Bluetooth 4 has lower power mode, too, though I'm not sure if it's suitable or not.

4. Seven devices covers enough mice, keyboards, touchpads, cellphones, and headsets for me. 🙂

But even assuming BT is less ideal in some regards, and I didn't find concrete info to show that this is the case, different people have difference priorities. Manufacturers could also improve the Bluetooth standard if there's a need, and it's also possible to implement both Bluetooth and proprietary on the same device.

Imagine WiFi was manufacturer-specific. How stupid would that be? I have no idea why wireless peripherals are still in the dark ages.

 

[Cerb]

No pairing to deal with. You plug it in and it works. Done. OS updates won't go unpairing on you, FI. Most are made for use with a single device anyway, and USB ports are easy to add.

 

[sm625]

Bluetooth is not reliable. I would never tolerate a mouse that loses its pairing randomly, be it once a week or once in a few months.

 

[mfenn]

Any idea why manufacturers do that?

Bluetooth has licensing fees, which eats into the bottom line of peripherals which are already low margin. Bluetooth devices are also much more complex than proprietary RF and as such require more expensive silicon and firmware coding. They also require additional external buttons for pairing, which also adds to the BOM.

There are also the additional support costs and warranty costs which must be included in the price of the product. Pairing can be really finicky, and providing tech support and processing warranty returns costs real money.

Of course shipping a dongle has a cost, but the cost of the Bluetooth silicon and development outweighs that.

 

[sheh]

If this thread is any indication I think I may have the answer: market dislike. 🙂 I think some of it may be due to various instances of bad hardware or software, but I'm not sure it's inherent to Bluetooth.

I don't think pairing is a big deal. It's a one time operation. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, Apple's wireless input devices are all Bluetooth. They tend to go for simplicity, so I guess that works okay for them.

Cost-wise, BT chips are off the shelf ICs, and libraries and sample code for them surely are part of the package. But anyway most manufacturers already have a few BT devices so they have existing infrastructure. But hey, a new product is a new product, that's true regardless of what you do.

 

[mfenn]

Cost-wise, BT chips are off the shelf ICs,

More expensive off the shelf ICs due to the license cost. Consumer electronics is a very cost-sensitive industry, and companies will go to great lengths to shave fractions of a dollar of the BOM.