Hacker News Reader

Comment by zachallaun | Hacker News Reader

One of my favorite wireless devices is a Logitech gaming mouse (G903) that I use with a mousepad that is also a charging mat. It uses a low-latency proprietary wireless protocol: https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/innovation/lightspeed.html

View on HN

Logitech's silly little plug-in receivers seem to be weirdly better than bluetooth, and they have been for as long as I remember. I don't really get why. If they have some magic technology in there, how has the Bluetooth SIG not managed to copy it?

The magic technology is that it's not following the bluetooth spec. It's a custom spec that works remarkably well, because it's reasonably scoped and not written by a multi-corporation-for-profit SIG.

Their dongles for wireless audio work like magic too - as close to zero latency as I've found in wireless computer headphones.

My understanding is that one of BT's big problems is that it's underspecified, so every implementation is slightly incompatible. Only having to deal with one implementation is therefore probably enough magic, but the BT SIG can't just copy it without changing the spec.

You are telling me that a single purpose spec/software/hardware stack works better than a complicated multi use case/OS/hardware standard? Call me shocked.

My cordless phone in the 90s dropped less calls than my cell phone today, how have cell phone companies not managed to copy it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com