Bluetooth or wi-fi Which for a small controller?

[oreo54]

Pros and cons please.
General ones seem to be bluetooth less secure slower
wi-fi more secure faster.

Are there more err practical considerations?
What are the nuances?

 

[AcanthurusRex]

More micros are likely to have a BTLE radio built in. Fewer parts.

 

[dbowman5]

here is my concern. blue tooth or wifi to my iphone allows me to control the equipment through an app while i am there but the app does not allow me to connect to my Mac then cellular to my mobile when i am out of the house.
Neither the loop app which current usa uses nor the hydros app which icecap uses do not allow me to connect to my router then to my network

 

[theatrus]

Its user experience.

Bluetooth: If you have a phone app, the setup process is seamless and easy. You can plug in equipment, open app, click on device or devices, and done.

Wi-fi: Remote control (most won't use it or port forward, so you're then running a server as a proxy). Requires setting up the Wifi network for the user, which on a device with no keyboard or display means... you need some other method. Blink-up is one cute hack, but a lot of products use a Bluetooth connection with a phone app to load the Wifi data to the device. ESP32 paths usually focus on Soft-AP appraoches, but its more steps.

 

[oreo54]

Thanks all.

 

[theatrus]

Thanks all.

Also of note: Bluetooth, more or less, requires a phone app for a seamless experience. Which means two phone apps (iOS/Android). This is non-trivial.

You can try to use WebBluetooth in Chrome, but its going to be a not-great experience, and incidentally excludes most phones from then using the connection.

An Introduction To WebBluetooth — Smashing Magazine

With Progressive Web Apps, you can now use the web to build full-blown apps. Thanks to an enormous amount of new specifications and features, we can do things with the web that you used to need to write native apps for. However, talking to hardware devices was still a bridge too far up till now...

www.smashingmagazine.com

A SoftAP based setup phase (where the device acts like an access point where you join it with any Wifi device) for a device allows anything with a web browser and Wifi to use it, which is more universal and less setup on your end, at the cost of a more confusing and multi-step process to get it going.

 

[oreo54]

Also of note: Bluetooth, more or less, requires a phone app for a seamless experience. Which means two phone apps (iOS/Android). This is non-trivial.

You can try to use WebBluetooth in Chrome, but its going to be a not-great experience, and incidentally excludes most phones from then using the connection.

An Introduction To WebBluetooth — Smashing Magazine

With Progressive Web Apps, you can now use the web to build full-blown apps. Thanks to an enormous amount of new specifications and features, we can do things with the web that you used to need to write native apps for. However, talking to hardware devices was still a bridge too far up till now...

www.smashingmagazine.com

A SoftAP based setup phase (where the device acts like an access point where you join it with any Wifi device) for a device allows anything with a web browser and Wifi to use it, which is more universal and less setup on your end, at the cost of a more confusing and multi-step process to get it going.

Yes but the access point method is pretty painless compared to the bad old days. Still kills your internet till you change wifi connection back.

Bluetooth compatibility issues are.....an issue.
But better then say Seneye which needs Windows or an overpriced router/access point.

 

[oreo54]

Wi-fi's winning.

 

[stefanm]

Take a look at the MIT Appinventor 2, creating an app for Bluetooth doesn't look too taxing. I was taking a look at it to run a storm X via Bluetooth to eliminate the screen and rotary encoder, not got very far with it yet though.