2y ago

Huawei launches Nearlink, a better than bluetooth competitor. The us won't benefit from it for now

NearLink launches, 6X faster than Bluetooth, with 1/30th the latency

Compared to bluetooth :

60% lower power consumption
Six times higher data transmission speed
1/30th the latency
7 dB improvement anti-interference for a more stable connection
Twice the coverage distance, and
10 times more network connections

Notice it's not talking of compression yet, but raw connection performance.

Due to the US Huawei ban, the tech won't arrive to the US yet. Nor maybe ever until something is done.

https://consumer.huawei.com/za/community/details/Huawei-Nearlink-launched-new-wireless-technology-far-ahead-of-Bluetooth/topicId_276306/

34 comments

I'm skeptical about all the claims and 60% less power consumption. Usually to get greater range, you need to up the power consumption. I'm not a bluetooth/electromagnetic spectrum expert though, so maybe they figured something out with the modulation or something.
- Seems really light on details. I couldn't find anything searching around and find these numbers hard to believe. I feel like it'll be something like you can have 60% lower power OR this other claim but not all the claims at the same time.
  Smells like marketing.
- Yeah, it's probably just BS.
So basically like a compromise between wifi & bluetooth?
The thing is, people using bluetooth is not looking for raw performance. When they more performance, they'd go with wifi. Wifi data transfer is a thing.
Last but not least, it's Huawei...
Edit: Regardless of the privacy & security stuff, Huawei is known for coming up with a bunch of empty gimmicks (see: Harmony OS).
- Bluetooth's poor latency performance is quite a big problem. It makes Bluetooth audio peripherals finicky for watching videos, and unsuitable for gaming. Audio headsets for gaming use their own protocols, which annoyingly makes them incompatible with everything else.
  
  This is not an issue of Bluetooth itself. Some audio devices include too large caches (because in the early days not having interrupted audio was a bigger deal than having video and audio synchronized), but you get Bluetooth audio devices just using the default SBC codec that don't have any noticeable delay. Using codecs like aptx adaptive fully solves the problem.
  The reason you don't see BT gaming headsets is not latency, it's Bluetooth missing a proper mode to submit audio in high quality bidirectionally. Long story short: when you got high quality sound on your headphones, the mic of your headset is not in use. When the mic is in use, the quality of the headphones is reduced to basically telephone call quality.
  There have been technologies trying to work around that, most important would probably be faststream, but it never really caught on. It's pretty
  obscure still, you have to take care that all the devices and software you want to use support it, so I guess it's just easier and cheaper to get a dedicated wireless gaming headset with dedicated USB dongle.
  At least since BT 5.0 I read stories that BT will be able to support gaming headsets aaaaany day now but well, nothing for now.
- Better Huawei than some American corp.
  
  At least with some American corp. there's a chance it's not under the control of some government agency with free reign to abuse the data they're collecting.
- Not really like that.
  Right now it's not possible to connect a headset/headphone via wifi to a device other than some proprietary things.
  So a general competitor usable on all devices allowing more data transfer for more audio with less compression. I think it could be interesting.
  Not just because it would maybe be better. But because competition on a market is a good thing for the consumer. And push bluetooth maybe further than what it is.
  Tho if by some misunderstanding, the chip used isn't compatible with bluetooth I'm not very sure... As brands would need to include 2 chips, which increases the cost.
  
  and it's proprietary, so less adoption
- Very low latency would be a big deal for audio. It currently ranges from incredibly high to passable, depending on implementation.
- I would certainly love Bluetooth to be higher bandwidth, for things like high-fidelity audio.
  Currently Bluetooth pairing usually works quite well on almost all devices. Conversely, wifi-based pairing is mostly a disaster. So much that even respected brands can't get it right.
  
  I sometimes control a high end camera through my phone. For basic controls it connects via Bluetooth but if you want live-shooting (you see what's being captured on the phone) it switches to WiFi. It's ALWAYS a massive pain in the ass, takes forever to connect, disconnects if the phone screen is off even just a few seconds, etc etc.
- Exactly. The important stuff is the stability of connection, even in a train where everyone uses it.
  
  I'm not sure it's always the only thing people want. Yes stability is needed, even more when a lot of people are using it.
  But currently headsets are heavily missing (very) high quality wireless audio and mic at the same time. Maybe this tech could push towards that.
- Well look at wifi vs bluetooth. Wifi and bluetooth both use 2.4ghz. But wifi has a lot more bandwidth on 2.4ghz. Maybe because it uses more channels (a bigger frequency range)?
  But there is room to improve bandwidth, even over distance. Tho how would they have done that, no idea. There is need for more time so devices with the tech can arrive on the market, and be tested.
  But also more time so more specialised content can be produced to inform us normal people.
I'm skeptical of any claims when they're only touted by the one selling it. I'll wait to see if it actually gets implemented anywhere and is verified by a third party.
Is this technology open source?
- I mean I'm pretty sure I know the answer. Call me jaded...
I've never had a bluetooth device that worked well and connected reliably, so "better than bluetooth" is not hard.
- Right. I care less about 60% less power, and more about will it randomly connect my phone to my car as my partner drives away instead to the speakers I was already using on the desk next to me.
That seems pretty interesting mix of the performance of Wifi with the more multi-connection side of Bluetooth. I have yet to see what would support it (or even if there is a generic protocol for things like headset, game controller, screen, remote, media player, etc), but it seems to be the missing technology for wireless haptic feedback controller on PC.
(edit: yes, joycon can do it, but it’s a special case where they does not pass raw audio)
Bluetooth plus! Now with a CCP backdoor included!
But is the connection speed good and riable?
Shitty pairing or random reconnect slowness/issues have been my #1 complaint about Bluetooth for, oh, 15 years. It's only barely gotten better in all that time.
What I want is an experience like wired connections, where I just plug it in. Then it works. Immediately. Every time.
Even as quick/reliable as wifi would be ok.
I don't give a shit about things like speed. Just reliability and decent audio quality.
As long as it doesn't use the 2.4GHz band I'm fine with it. I'm so done with Audio stuttering while using WiFi.
- You use 2.4GHz wifi?
  
  I am sory for not living in a giant home without any 2.4ghz neighbors around me.
  Also I myself use 2.4ghz for low bandwidth devices, and other connected devices which don't have 5ghz. And there are also the neighbors who cast their 2.4ghz network they may use how they will around me.
  But I didn't have many issues on most of the headsets I tried. At least higher end.
  There were still some outliers and with bad unreliable connections, even on high latency (jbl tour one m2 for example).
  Others like corsair headsets had issues at "high" range (like 10-15m through walls), but no issues at close range, but that is expected from their specs.
  
  We have both at home, but at school im stuck on 2.4
  
  Most IoT devices still need it, and it's actually recommended for those for its better wall/floor penetrating ability, since a light bulb isn't going to need tons of bandwidth.
This makes me somewhat hopeful for one day setting up a decent wireless surround sound in my living room.
Haven't checked in a while. Are there decent solutions today?

34 comments