[izprtxqkft]

Bluetooth uses more battery

subjective assumption, firetv remotes are bluetooth and i have had some run 2+ years, i just replaced a gen2 with a gen3 and found out it still had the same batteries in the remote it came with
 

and is unnecessary when television requires line of site

agree is unnecessary for televisions but we're talking about equipment here, i do not want an HTPC "eye sore" on my entertainment stand so i use bluetooth
i suppose an IR repeater could be used but only adds complication and does not remove any
 

complicated protocol to begin with

i dont find bluetooth complicated i guess this is subjective too
 

Plus the selection of Bluetooth remotes is objectively poorer than IR.

not really, the rocktek, homatics, firetv are all bluetooth but i actually prefer higher end universal remotes like the Harmony Elite (which is what used to work perfect on LibreELEC that i noted above)

testing a Sofabaton X1 now and it's also bluetooth to 2 playback devices presently as well as controlling the soundbar, tv and hdmi switch via IR remote sensor, ill do a thread on this after awhile

[calev]

subjective assumption, firetv remotes are bluetooth and i have had some run 2+ years, i just replaced a gen2 with a gen3 and found out it still had the same batteries in the remote it came with
 

Interesting. I did not know it could last that long.

i dont find bluetooth complicated i guess this is subjective too

This is not subjective. Bluetooth is objectively a more complicated protocol. You can make your own ir receiver and write code for it on rpi. You just can't do that with bluetooth in a reasonable amount of time. And it doesn't really give you anything useful in return. Unless you want to control your tv with your remote in your hand stuffed under the couch cushion.

i do not want an HTPC "eye sore" on my entertainment stand

I love showing my htcp equipment off.

[izprtxqkft]

Interesting. I did not know it could last that long.

honestly, i was shocked too, i opened the remote to steal the batteries for something else since it was going offline and i had assumed i changed them at least once but no they were the cheapo amazon ...
 

This is not subjective. Bluetooth is objectively a more complicated protocol. You can make your own ir receiver and write code for it on rpi. You just can't do that with bluetooth in a reasonable amount of time. And it doesn't really give you anything useful in return. Unless you want to control your tv with your remote in your hand stuffed under the couch cushion.

this seems to indicate you find the actual connecting complicated? is that correct?
on libre/core elec it is as simple as going into settings -> bluetooth
on KDE/Debian it is as simple as opening system settings -> bluetooth

if you mean the dongle itself, i recommend broadcom because they seem to work out of the box with the kernel side of things

as far as under the couch cushion, actually i tend to leave the remote on the side table and just reach over and click a button without picking it up or caring what direction it's facing so sort of under the cushion i guess


-----

edit

while we were having this conversation, amidst me doing other things, i connected my rocktek g2 with coreelec to my hdmi switch, used a usb keyboard since no remote was configured, setup the sofabaton x1 to control it over bluetooth as well as setting up an activity to turn on the tv, soundbar, hdmi switch, change switch inputs, change soundbar input, and connect to rocktek

it is already up and working as my 3rd playback device being controlled by bluetooth by the Sofabaton X1 while it controls the equipment in the correct manner for volume and inputs
this is what i like about bluetooth because all devices are in a cabinet under the tv but "just work" (*actually almost just work, i had to remap select on the remote to send Enter instead but nothing to do with bluetooth or IR)

[calev]

I mean the underlying protocol that is Bluetooth is vastly more complicated than IR. From a engineering prospective it's rarely a good idea to use a more complicated solution when a simple one works just as well. It's dirt cheap and relatively easy to implement IR from scratch.

And so solutions for IR SHOULD always be cheaper, more reliable ,and more varied.

That's my view on it. But if Bluetooth works for you great. I prefer IR whenever possible.

[izprtxqkft]

That's my view on it. But if Bluetooth works for you great. I prefer IR whenever possible.

that's good with me, agree to disagree then, if IR works for you then also great

im not in a sales position and not trying and force anything, just presenting 1 opinion and a little debate never hurts anyone

[noggin]

I mean the underlying protocol that is Bluetooth is vastly more complicated than IR. From a engineering prospective it's rarely a good idea to use a more complicated solution when a simple one works just as well. It's dirt cheap and relatively easy to implement IR from scratch.

And so solutions for IR SHOULD always be cheaper, more reliable ,and more varied.

That's my view on it. But if Bluetooth works for you great. I prefer IR whenever possible.

I used to prefer IR - particularly as it allowed you to use third party multi-device remotes more easily.  However now all my equipment is in a cabinet (with ventilation) it's easier to use RF tech for remote control than having to rely on those little IR repeaters.