• Re: BLE support in phones

    From Theo@theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk to sci.electronics.design on Sun Jul 26 15:38:59 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    And, you keep ALL of these updated so they are usable when you
    next might need them.

    Or, you access the *up-to-date* web page for each of these
    WHILE you need said access and your phone is unburdened by
    them once you close the browser.

    <https://webbluetoothcg.github.io/web-bluetooth/scanning.html>
    why anyone in their right mind want a phone to by default have something that
    notifies of every random BLE device you pass, and getting spammed with annoying
    ads on top of that-a ?
    You obviously would have controls -- just like your phone doesn't
    notify you of every WiFi AP that you pass.

    I don't know a whole lot about BLE but AFAIK it provides *communication* but doesn't define the *semantic meaning* in the way you want.

    In other words your garage door opener has two messages, 'open' and 'close'. BLE lets you send message A or message B, but it doesn't define the meaning that says 'you send message A to open the door' and 'message B means close'. Without that, you can't construct a UI with buttons for open and close.

    Zigbee, to use another example, does provide enough meaning that you can
    make those open and close buttons from a generic UI without needing to run
    code from the manufacturer. I don't think BLE does. You have make a device expect a HID profile (ie a keyboard) and maybe decide that 'Enter' means
    open and 'Delete' means close or something, but again you need manufacturer code to make that work (or somebody else has reverse engineered that).

    There are various BLE profiles like fitness and audio where these things
    have been specified and they can be interpreted by generic code, but if you don't map to one of those profiles then generic support isn't possible.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles

    Theo
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Don Y@blockedofcourse@foo.invalid to sci.electronics.design on Sun Jul 26 09:12:29 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

    On 7/26/2026 7:38 AM, Theo wrote:
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
    And, you keep ALL of these updated so they are usable when you
    next might need them.

    Or, you access the *up-to-date* web page for each of these
    WHILE you need said access and your phone is unburdened by
    them once you close the browser.

    <https://webbluetoothcg.github.io/web-bluetooth/scanning.html>
    why anyone in their right mind want a phone to by default have something that
    notifies of every random BLE device you pass, and getting spammed with annoying
    ads on top of that-a ?
    You obviously would have controls -- just like your phone doesn't
    notify you of every WiFi AP that you pass.

    I don't know a whole lot about BLE but AFAIK it provides *communication* but doesn't define the *semantic meaning* in the way you want.

    What a stream of bits "means" can be interpreted any way you want.
    We tend to agree on what the bits that have been mapped to these characters mean. But, they could easily be interpreted to mean ANYTHING else.

    I can set my SSID to "Dr Alonzo's Cardiology" and convey (deceptive) information to passersby looking at available BT connections.

    In other words your garage door opener has two messages, 'open' and 'close'. BLE lets you send message A or message B, but it doesn't define the meaning that says 'you send message A to open the door' and 'message B means close'. Without that, you can't construct a UI with buttons for open and close.

    That's up to whomever defines that interface. A and B might, instead,
    be "turn on the light that is part of the opener mechanism" and
    "prevent any other WIRED controls from being recognized by the opener".

    The FIRST issue to address is how ubiquitous the underlying technology
    is and how familiar it is to users:
    "How ubiquitous is (or isn't!) this? Is there a general
    (temporal) cutoff point where its support is "expected"
    before which it is a rarity?"
    The *hardware* and OS support has been around. But, it hides behind
    specific applications tied to specific peripherals -- a small subset
    of how it CAN be used.

    Folks think of Bluetooth (Classic) and WiFi as "connectors". You "plug in" your earbuds and "plug your phone" into the internet. *YOU* control that action, for the most part. Unless you wander too far from your phone
    (or the AP), you EXPECT the connection to persist (barring hardware
    failures)

    They don't think of it as something that they can have fleeting interactions with and still extract value. Waiting for a table at a restaurant and
    "seeing" YOUR expected wait time updated dynamically (you will NEVER connect
    to that instance again yet it has value NOW). Or, navigating a hospital
    or other semi-public facility for the first (only?) time. Or,
    standing in an endless line at Disney{Land,World} and receiving an updating notification "Wait time from this point is 45 minutes" -- which obviously changes the nearer you get to the destination.

    It's only when people become accustomed to such interactions that they
    start *looking* for them. Otherwise, the technology has no value to them.

    Appliances now have the ability to alert their users of significant
    events. But, do so using heavy protocols that often rely on (external)
    third parties (why can't my washing machine contact me directly without
    having to go through a manufacturer's server?)

    Zigbee, to use another example, does provide enough meaning that you can
    make those open and close buttons from a generic UI without needing to run code from the manufacturer. I don't think BLE does. You have make a device expect a HID profile (ie a keyboard) and maybe decide that 'Enter' means
    open and 'Delete' means close or something, but again you need manufacturer code to make that work (or somebody else has reverse engineered that).

    There are various BLE profiles like fitness and audio where these things
    have been specified and they can be interpreted by generic code, but if you don't map to one of those profiles then generic support isn't possible.

    If you can't *see* that BLE devices are present, then you don't consider looking to use them.

    If I walk into a coffee shop, store, doctor's office, etc. there is no guarantee that they will DISPLAY an access point that I can use, there
    (as a courtesy). If my phone couldn't show me the SSIDs that it was encountering while there, I likely wouldn't notice the one named
    "Joe's Coffee Shop" so would not avail myself of that capability.

    One wouldn't know the airport had beacons strewn about at known locations
    to assist with pedestrian navigation unless you could *see* those. Seeing
    them once might encourage you to investigate what sort of apps can
    exploit them and how to acquire those.

    As I said upthread, you definitely wouldn't want to be bothered with
    installing an *app* to take advantage of these as their use frequency
    would likely approach zero. But, (as also indicated) referencing
    them in a web page that a facility can serve via a URl broadcast by
    a beacon (cf Eddystone) makes a lot of sense -- IF you are savvy
    enough to look for them.

    From the informal survey I've done, most phones don't NATIVELY report
    the existence of proximate BLE devices. One has to install a scanner
    if you want to see what's available. And, tolerate the battery drain
    if one wanted to *follow* the signals available as one wanders about.

    And, Average Joe's likely would just find this information confusing.
    They aren't sophisticated enough -- YET -- to see its value. If
    they've opted to buy a fitness tracker or watch, then their knowledge
    of BLE is hidden inside that product offering; they know nothing of
    what *else* it can do for them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bluetooth_profiles
    Yes, but you can always create a custom profile -- for Classic or LE.
    Nothing forces you to use a technology in a particular manner.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2