Post #2694701
2026-01-17 13:53 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@dance_ninja@lemmy.world 2026-01-17 18:27
I'd agree security needs more attention when developing protocols and products, and I'd also consider Bluetooth simple. That being said, I know plenty of folks that don't like the Bluetooth pairing process, especially those without a technical background. Fast Pair is really convenient, and I'd say it can open the door for a lot of new experiences, but I do wish the developers put more effort into their TARA.
-
@zarenki@lemmy.ml 2026-01-18 03:58
I think it's far more common for devices to get pairing wrong than to get it right. Just a few of the very common issues I've seen in various devices: * TVs that are constantly in discoverable mode, even when the screen is off. Just in case the owner loses their remote and wants to pair a new one without reaching behind the TV to press a button. No way of avoiding this except disabling Bluetooth entirely, which makes the stock remote lose either partial or all functionality. Pairing requests also interrupt whatever you're watching. * Audio devices that have a very short delay after turning on and waiting for any already-paired devices to connect before switching over to a pairing mode instead. So short that a smartphone in a low-power state (e.g. because you haven't unlocked it for a few minutes) might not connect in time. Most if not all of the bluetooth-to-3.5mm receivers intended for older cars seem to share this problem. * Pairing codes are extremely underused in general, even among input devices. Most things seem to just pair with whoever sends a request first unconditionally.
-
@Auth@lemmy.world 2026-01-18 19:06
A lot of people genuinely find Fast Pair to be a big improvement over traditional Bluetooth pairing. So why is it such a bad idea for a company to design a protocol that solves the problem? I dont see that as wasting resources at all. Also Bluetooth pairing has had its own share of vulnerabilities over the years this issue isnt really unique to Fast Pair.