Until they invent a wireless power supply for the telly I'm not interested. If you have to have even just one cable going to the telly, then wireless is pointless in my view.
Those déclassé wires tethering your wide-screen TV to your set-top box or Blu-Ray drive may finally disappear when ultra-wideband HDTV sets hit the market later this year, thanks to a group of announcements at this year's CES. According to a report by the IEE Times, wireless-chip designer SiBEAM "snagged three major design …
I have a set-top box, a Wii, a HTPC, a VCR (don't ask) and a DVD-R all hooked up to an Amp, which is then hooked up to speakers and a TV. The cabling at the back of the cabinet is a right royal mess. Admittedly, I don't have HD equipment (standard DVD, standard wide-screen TV) and I use s-video cabling and SP/DIF-fibre whenever possible.
If they brought out paired (or pairable) transmitters/receivers the size of (say) a box of matches with the proper plugs, I'd be all for it if only to get rid of that cabling clutter.
Might need to have different transmitters/receivers for different cabling/plug option, tough. I don't want "extra" cables/plugs hanging around doing nothing.
I'd live to hand my TV on the wall, but unless you have a 4" pipe buried in the wall for the power, HDMI, Scart (*2), Coax, and Component cables you can't do it without there being ugly cables hanging around.
Now, if I only had to channel a power cable this would be easy - everything else could plug into one of these boxes and transmit the rest wirelessly to the screen.
Alternatively I suppose they could make the box and the screen seperate so you only need one cable that caries power and digital sigtnal to the screen and plug the other cables in elsewhere and out of sight.
So ... Sony promotes a UWB industry standard and it's boo nay! naughty sony!
But this UWB industry standard (which also involves Sony) is perfectly fine?
I wish you'd make your minds up
Or ... you know ... made at least a small attempt to know what you're talking about before firing up Dreamweaver.
That's what I'm waiting for, a separation between the screen and the guts of the TV so a thine power/signal cable runs to your TV and everything else can be tucked away in a cabinet. The screen part of the TV could be considerably smaller and slimmer as well. TV designers who read the Reg make it so......
All this wireless stuff makes me think our family is going to be sat in front of the telly in radiation suits.
Why not just throw optics in everywhere and have done with it? Much smaller, neater and carries an awful lot of data. Wireless isn't any good without some form of control, and while they've achieved the bandwidth, I don't think they've thought through the multiple devices thing.
"wireless Gigabit Ethernet could some day allow not only high-speed WLAN performance, but also allow PCs and notebooks to transfer massive HD-video files to settop boxes for playback on wirelessly connected HDTVs."
Why would you send your HD video file to a set-top box and then send to TV? Surely you're PC/notebook will have a built in WHD transmitter and will simply transmit directly to the TV?
The people who don't see the point of these cable-less technologies aren't seeing the bigger picture, we are not talking about less cable clutter behind your TV, what about sitting in front of the TV with your laptop and quickly showing your friends a youtube clip on the big screen, presumably not long before the tech makes it onto hand-helds too, you can then stream HD (from iTunes or wherever) straight up on to the screen
". . wirelessly to your set top box? You mean your not already? PS3 and TVersity, nuff said."
With comments like that, you should stay annon.
We can all stream but we want to replace the hdmi cable with wireless and NOT lose quality - yes you do with Tverisity or any other solution as you simply do not have the bandwidth.
p.s. don't need to be a ps3, many devices can do it as you do.
When Sony creates a "standard" it most definitely is "boo nay! naughty sony!" In case you've been living under a rock, or with a bunch of Macolytes for the past forever or so, proprietary is bad. Everything about Sony is proprietary.
Now, I am not going "ra ra open source, give everything away for free." I am saying OPEN STANDARDS WITH CHEAP OR FREE LICENSING TO INCORPORATE INTO YOUR PRODUCTS. MP3 was a reasonably priced format. CAT5/CAT6 was an open Standard. DVI/HDMI/D-SUB etc. were all output formats that were either free or reasonably priced for licensing.
Compare this to blu-ray, mini-disc, or any of the dozens of other proprietary or open-but-horribly-expensive-to-license formats and standards Sony has concocted. By the gods, you'd think they were Apple or some such.
The reason for these free/fair-and-cheap standards and formats is that it allows interconnectivity between devices produced by multiple manufacturers, fostering innovation, competition and creativity. Sony abhor everything they can’t control, and have never been known to play nice with anyone. So boo Sony standards? Hell yes. A standard created by a large consortium of businesses, governments, and NGOs, released as free specification, or licensed in a reasonable and fair manner that is conducive to competition is the only path forward. It is for that reason, I’ll never buy anything that says Apple or Sony on the side. Boo and hiss at the both of them. (And a naught “shame shame” to MS and a raft of others for quite a few things too.)
"In case you've been living under a rock,"
You may want to re-read the articles and my comments before making silly snipes like this. Transferjet and WirelessHD are both industry standards that happen to involve Sony. As are Bluetooth, Zigbee, Wireless USB, and any number of other industry standards.
And before you bash your capslock key, you may want to spend two minutes actually reading the licensing terms that are quite clearly described on the websites of each of those standards.
OK. Maybe ten minutes. Some of them have words with three or more syllables. Perhaps ask a friend to help.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021