>IIRC WiFi is also a much simpler protocol, it’s just a data channel (its aim being to replace LAN cables).
I'm not sure what do you mean, but Wi-Fi covers the PHY layer and the MAC layers. It's not « only » a data channel. Modern Wi-Fi uses OFDMA, which is arguably more complex than what bluetooth uses (without even talking about the MAC).
I think WiFi is better abstracted and layer-delineated though. Wifi has a lot of complexity but it largely feels like necessary complexity, and the physical layer, data layer, and application layer all mostly stay in their lane. Bluetooth is a mishmash of accidental complexity with physical layer leaking data layer abstraction, and the application/data boundary is even more blurred. Instead of dumb pipes, you have to worry about codecs and the like, of which there are myriad vendor specific ones.
