Samsung readies first mobile processor with Wireless USB

[AppleInsider]

Opening the door to true wireless sync for portable devices, Samsung has taken the wraps from the first handheld-sized processor with built-in support for the Wireless USB standard.

Made public on Wednesday, the unnamed processor joins a central ARM core with the new peripheral standard to pipe data at a real-life 120Mbps -- more than twice as fast as existing Wireless USB chipsets and fast enough to more closely imitate traditional, wired USB.

The system-on-a-chip implementation also has a built-in RAM controller as well as links for ordinary USB and could serve as a complete replacement CPU for devices that would otherwise need a cable to transfer large amounts of information across a short distance.

As it can shuttle a 700MB movie over the wireless link in about a minute, Samsung touts the technology as being fast enough for a typical data sync, multimedia streaming, and even for sharing data between similar devices. An MP3 player could beam its music through wireless speakers, for example, while a cellphone could share songs or videos between other compatible products.

Volume production of the chip should begin sometime during the second calendar quarter of the year.

It's not certain that Apple will ever use this particular chip for any future devices. Although the Cupertino, Calif.-based company regularly uses Samsung ARM chips for iPhone and iPod touch models, any implementation would need to both perform well and to have corresponding support on Apple computers; there's no sign yet that the Mac maker is ready to adopt Wireless USB for any system in its lineup.

Should Apple ever adopt some variant of the new processor, however, the invention would have sufficient transfer speed to let users sync entire iTunes libraries or to add peripherals that would otherwise need the performance of a full-fledged USB port. While companies have already experimented with automatic wireless updates, such as the Zune's Wi-Fi sync of its owner's library, these have often been deliberately limited only to transfers after the first sync, which is often too large for the relatively slow speeds of the 802.11g wireless links that are the norm on cellphones and other palm-sized gadgets.

[iVlad]

Is it gonna work on Wi-Fi because most Wi-Fi networks limit speeds.
hmmm

[hittrj01]

Originally Posted by iVlad

Is it gonna work on Wi-Fi because most Wi-Fi networks limit speeds.
hmmm

I could be totally wrong here, but to my knowledge, wireless USB does not communicate with WiFi at all. Its setup is similar in theory to bluetooth in the sense that it's a direct wireless connection from two or more devices, but each device has to have a specific chip for wireless USB. The difference, though, is that this is much more versatile than bluetooth simply because it is WAY faster. 120Mbps over the air? That is insane, especially considering bluetooth's around 2Mbps (at best). Once this technology becomes cheap enough that every major electronic device has it, we may see the end of wires forever.

[Splinemodel]

Wireless USB was originally a standard for a short-range UWB (ultra wideband) radio. Since its inception, it has never had a serious backer, partly due to regulation difficulty with the FCC. I have no idea what is the state of wireless USB except that as a standard it's in free fall. Until someone like Apple takes ahold of any given "wireless USB" chip and makes it the de facto definition, as a consumer I wouldn't touch wireless USB.

It's a weak standard. Check out the Bluetooth guys if you want to see how to execute and deliver a wireless standard.

[FallofRedmond]

http://www.usb.org/developers/wusb/

[kyungjin]

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

Wireless USB was originally a standard for a short-range UWB (ultra wideband) radio. Since its inception, it has never had a serious backer, partly due to regulation difficulty with the FCC. I have no idea what is the state of wireless USB except that as a standard it's in free fall. Until someone like Apple takes ahold of any given "wireless USB" chip and makes it the de facto definition, as a consumer I wouldn't touch wireless USB.

It's a weak standard. Check out the Bluetooth guys if you want to see how to execute and deliver a wireless standard.

Bluetooth is horrible as a wireless standard. In my experience, it's range is still pretty restricting and transfer speeds are horrid slow.

I haven't had a problem with USB thus far and so I'm hoping Wireless USB won't have as much hiccups as bluetooth... Also, if these transfer speeds are almost real-life speeds then this is something we might all get pretty hyped about.

[Splinemodel]

Originally Posted by kyungjin

Bluetooth is horrible as a wireless standard. In my experience, it's range is still pretty restricting and transfer speeds are horrid slow.

I haven't had a problem with USB thus far and so I'm hoping Wireless USB won't have as much hiccups as bluetooth... Also, if these transfer speeds are almost real-life speeds then this is something we might all get pretty hyped about.

Bluetooth was designed to meet a specific set of requirements. It generally does these pretty well, but not perfectly. It is, however, a strong standard. The Bluetooth SIG does an excellent job of promoting interoperability among a vast number of vendors, and also keeps the standard specification from getting too bogged down in bureaucratic feature-glut. Wireless USB on the other hand has a pathetic history of failure, and there is a handful of vendors who all advertise "wireless USB" solutions, few of which have remotely similar specifications. Unless a major user (like Apple) adopts a given implementation of wireless USB, we can just as well relegate it to the ashpile of failed technologies.

[ltcommander.data]

I've always wondered why Apple doesn't support Wireless USB? It seems like the perfect solution to complaints about never having enough USB ports, especially for the MacBook Air.

I would think that since Wireless USB uses the same protocol as USB, you could just buy a standard transmitter for use with existing USB devices, like plugging an existing wired USB printer into a transmitter to talk wirelessly with a notebook. Since it uses the same USB protocol, it could probably be transparent and you wouldn't even need to write new drivers for it since it'd just think it's wired. This allows backwards compatibility with all those wired USB devices before dedicated wireless USB products are widely available.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

I've always wondered why Apple doesn't support Wireless USB? It seems like the perfect solution to complaints about never having enough USB ports, especially for the MacBook Air.

I would think that since Wireless USB uses the same protocol as USB, you could just buy a standard transmitter for use with existing USB devices, like plugging an existing wired USB printer into a transmitter to talk wirelessly with a notebook. Since it uses the same USB protocol, it could probably be transparent and you wouldn't even need to write new drivers for it since it'd just think it's wired. This allows backwards compatibility with all those wired USB devices before dedicated wireless USB products are widely available.

It does seem like a no-brainer. Think about the mouse for example, even though I have several Bluetooth (or is the Blueteeth?) wireless mice, for detailed work in graphics I have to use a USB wired mouse for accurate movement, the wireless mice just don't have the same fine response especially on 30" ACDs. With this technology a USB wireless mouse would work identically to a wired one. I assume a simple USB plug in could equip any existing Mac with the receiver and future Macs would have it built in. Sign me up

[teslacoil6603]

Now how about that wireless FireWire huh?

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by teslacoil6603

Now how about that wireless FireWire huh?

I'm holding out for direct thought transference ...

[BenRoethig]

It would be some great PR points for Apple to be first to market with wireless USB. The one concern I have though is battery life on portable devices like Mice, keyboards, and iPods.

[Bryan0725]

Originally Posted by hittrj01

I could be totally wrong here, but to my knowledge, wireless USB does not communicate with WiFi at all. Its setup is similar in theory to bluetooth in the sense that it's a direct wireless connection from two or more devices, but each device has to have a specific chip for wireless USB. The difference, though, is that this is much more versatile than bluetooth simply because it is WAY faster. 120Mbps over the air? That is insane, especially considering bluetooth's around 2Mbps (at best). Once this technology becomes cheap enough that every major electronic device has it, we may see the end of wires forever.

YAY CANCER FOR EVERYONE!!!!

[mstone]

oh goody, another set of wireless security pairing, logins, exploits, etc.

[Bryan0725]

[ed: let's not.]

[Shaine_Michael]

as a musician, i find WUSB very exciting. three words... "wireless midi controllers".

[Bryan0725]

Originally Posted by Bryan0725

[ed: let's not.]

Jeff why did you CENSOR MY LINKS?

are you not a believer in free speech and exposing criminals?

who do you work for?

i suggest you watch those films for yourself before killing my links...
the information is vital.

I didnt think that my rights would be assaulted on this site thats why I joined.

have you heard of the ACLU?

to jeffDM Thumbs down.
please respond

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Bryan0725

Jeff why did you CENSOR MY LINKS?

are you not a believer in free speech and exposing criminals?

who do you work for?

i suggest you watch those films for yourself before killing my links...
the information is vital.

I didnt think that my rights would be assaulted on this site thats why I joined.

have you heard of the ACLU?

to jeffDM Thumbs down.
please respond

Don't you have your own forum on your own subjects of interest you can post to and let us stay on topic? I promise for one not to go to yours and screw around.