or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's dynamic user interface would adapt to user's proximity, allowing control from close & far
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's dynamic user interface would adapt to user's proximity, allowing control from close & far - Page 2

post #41 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Got to love these filings. R&D for Google and Scamsung for free.

 

Johnny works for Google.  At least the last time we exchanged email.  Dude is seriously smart.  Wish I had kept more in touch, maybe I'd have scored a free Kinect.

post #42 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Unless Google has been doing a vast amount if R&D that they don't patent. Which they don't, up until they gegan massing patents from companies and patents they bought, they only had about 300 patents. That was far less than any other major competitor. And everybody patents. Everybody.

I've read that Google does a lot of R&D, but if you look at those numbers very closely, you will see that it's not mainly R&D, but software development costs. That's very different.


Like Steve said, innovation is not just a question of signing a check, that would be too simple.

I think Apple is right in considering that, as a system integrator, they have to leave to their suppliers most of the burden of the associated technological research , which is very risky and costly. This is what all system integrators (Boeing, Airbus...) do.

The only interrogation I have is that given its size, there is a problem for Apple to remain "focused" on a very limited number of product lines.

Although they already successfully entered new business, what one would expect from a company like Apple is to enter totally new businesses. The fastest way to do this would be to buy a large company, but here again we have a contradiction with the values which made the Apple success possible, because although small companies can be absorbed easiliy, I see a lot of difficulties to transplant the Apple culture into another large company.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #43 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But before they lost that famous lawsuit with Microsoft all those years ago, they began to patent more of what they did. Getting ripped off will test anyone.

True. Wonder why Google is also filing for patents then¡
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #44 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah. I'm getting a little tired of Apple as of late. While they seem to do a lot of interesting research, they also seem to rarely do much with it. They appear to be to afraid to actually take a chance. And for those who think that's Cook's problem, it's not. SJ wasn't any better.

I'd like to see a product (or several) from them that incorporates a number of these inventions, even if they're not entirely ready for prime time. Apple could state that they are "hobbies", or experimental' or whatever. Just DO something! I understand Apple's penchant for only releasing products that they think are perfected (though often we find they are not). But Google has no problem with releasing things that aren't, and doing well with them.

Apple has lost the belief that they are innovating. Whether true or not, it's one reason the stock is where it is. So it takes them years to come out with a watch. Maybe it will be great, and maybe it will bomb. But meanwhile, give us SOMETHING! There's no reason it took so many years before we got API's for handheld controllers, for example. Why weren't they out in 2008? Think of how things could have been different.

We're talking about saphirre screens and Liquidmetal on Seeking Alpha. I'm wary of either. While both sound nice, the costs will be significant, and what real benefit will there be? Yes, saphirre is less scratchable. But Gorilla Glass is already pretty hard to scratch. Less breakable? Yes, but better design would go a long way there too. As it is, the 5, 5S and 5C are all much better than the 4 and 4S in that regard. Liquidmetal? What real benefit will that give us, other than bragging rights?

I'd rather see some of these innovative UI inventions come out, even if Apple makes them optional. And how about finally doing something with Siri? What have they don't with it these past few years? Hardly anything!

Patience is a virtue; any fisherman will tell you that.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #45 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post

While reading this, did anyone else hear "Money For Nothing" (Dire Straits) playing in their head?

"and your chicks for free"
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #46 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydrogen View Post


Be Zen. Empty your mind. Do not pay attention to noise. Have faith in the prophets (OK, they do not say much, but ...).

(may be what Apple needs are prophets, after all)

I apparently prophesied the iPad Air, but chose to keep schtum.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #47 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I apparently prophesied the iPad Air, but chose to keep schtum.


Apple once had evangelists, so why not prophets ....

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #48 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's totally incorrect. SIRi was beta for two YEARS! Apple stated that. They say aTv is a hobby. They've stated that as well. They've had other beta software over the years.

People who think Apple isn't market oriented are fooling themselves. Of course they are. Every company is. They have to be. Apple responds to the market. If they do come up with a bigger phone this year, that will be entirely in response to market movement. Please don't think that they came up with it all by themselves.

Since when was Siri hardware? Apple has never sold beta hardware. It has released beta software.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #49 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Got to love these filings. R&D for Google and Scamsung for free.

Yeah. I'm getting a little tired of Apple as of late. While they seem to do a lot of interesting research, they also seem to rarely do much with it. They appear to be to afraid to actually take a chance. And for those who think that's Cook's problem, it's not. SJ wasn't any better.

I'd like to see a product (or several) from them that incorporates a number of these inventions, even if they're not entirely ready for prime time. Apple could state that they are "hobbies", or experimental' or whatever. Just DO something! I understand Apple's penchant for only releasing products that they think are perfected (though often we find they are not). But Google has no problem with releasing things that aren't, and doing well with them.

Apple has lost the belief that they are innovating. Whether true or not, it's one reason the stock is where it is. So it takes them years to come out with a watch. Maybe it will be great, and maybe it will bomb. But meanwhile, give us SOMETHING! There's no reason it took so many years before we got API's for handheld controllers, for example. Why weren't they out in 2008? Think of how things could have been different.

We're talking about saphirre screens and Liquidmetal on Seeking Alpha. I'm wary of either. While both sound nice, the costs will be significant, and what real benefit will there be? Yes, saphirre is less scratchable. But Gorilla Glass is already pretty hard to scratch. Less breakable? Yes, but better design would go a long way there too. As it is, the 5, 5S and 5C are all much better than the 4 and 4S in that regard. Liquidmetal? What real benefit will that give us, other than bragging rights?

I'd rather see some of these innovative UI inventions come out, even if Apple makes them optional. And how about finally doing something with Siri? What have they don't with it these past few years? Hardly anything!

I totally agree!

This:
Quote:
There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

And this:
Quote:
A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week.
- George S. Patton -
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #50 of 75
SOT

If this is real ...

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #51 of 75
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's totally incorrect. SIRi was beta for two YEARS! Apple stated that. They say aTv is a hobby. They've stated that as well. They've had other beta software over the years.

People who think Apple isn't market oriented are fooling themselves. Of course they are. Every company is. They have to be. Apple responds to the market. If they do come up with a bigger phone this year, that will be entirely in response to market movement. Please don't think that they came up with it all by themselves.
I'm always amazed that some people... especially someone with your background and knowledge of Apple... would ever suggest the idea that Apple would follow it's competitors for the sake of the market.

Also, to suggest that Apple hasn't already tried and has working prototypes of every screen size and technology available for iPhones, and even some that are custom made in the labs, is simply not being able to fathom the size of Apple and it's reseach labs.

I shouldn't have to repeat to anyone the story, as related by SJ, that it was an iPad like device that was pulled down from a shelf and then married to touch tech and a micro OSX that other engineers were working on, that gave birth to the iPhone.

Just that little insight should shed light on the fact that there are a ton (literally I'm sure!) of prototype devices, skunk works tech projects and advanced OS engineering efforts... just waiting to find their perfect fit at Apple.

Then comes the logistics of sourcing all of the materials, machines, and labor sources to produce millions of the new product within months of a launch. It is this stage where I'm sure that many Apple projects get delayed, not because Apple doesn't have any ideas... and surely not because they are 'casing' the market to see how well other similar products are doing.

Do it right... or wait for the day that you can. Even though Apple called the Apple TV a hobby at one time, I'm sure they always envisioned what they wanted it to be and do some day. Airplay didn't just pop into someones head one day for example.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #53 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

SOT

If this is real ...

That guy is awesome. He has worked for Apple in the past and done streaming games (OnLive), MOVA for 3D photoreal body capture (used on Benjamin Button - "some actors (he won't say who) are even asking him to digitize their faces while they're young so they can potentially keep appearing that way in movies through computer generated images") and now wireless tech and there's a mention of retinal tech for virtual reality with touch using standing fields. Some of the techniques they come up with are amazing. For the facial capture for example, they tried to find ways to track the movement accurately and found that uniform trackers like the dots other people used didn't work well so they powdered the actors' faces and discovered that the random pattern from the powder is easier for the camera to detect because the randomness is unique.

They weren't allowed to use the cellular wireless spectrum to do the pcell tests with so they went out and got ham radio licenses instead and used that network:

http://www.wired.com/business/2011/06/perlman-holy-grail-wireless/

- Its “unlimited bandwidth” will eliminate dead zones and dropped calls, even in an urban jungle like New York City.
- The signals will pass through solid objects that block cellular signals at the same frequency and power.
- It doesn’t need tall cell towers — just modest base stations the size of an internet router.
- Those access points will broadcast a signal over a mile, while outdoor antennas can reach 30 miles or more in every direction — beyond the curvature of the earth, brags Perlman. Theoretically, that number will rise to 250 miles once Rearden’s engineers have time to test the tech at a longer range.

Naturally, this didn’t happen overnight — DIDO has been in the works for about 10 years.
Shannon’s Law, as it became known, states that the maximum rate at which error-free data can be transmitted is a function of the bandwidth and the signal-to-noise ratio. No communications system has surpassed Shannon’s theoretical speed limit — until now, asserts Perlman.

“Everyone we called — you know, like professors and Ph.D students — were like, ‘You’re crazy, this’ll never work, we all know that wireless doesn’t work that way.’” says Perlman. “We had another person to whom I said, ‘Look, everyone’s been telling me this can’t possibly work. I just need to know why.’”

Tired of rejection without explanation, Perlman hired the researcher to disprove DIDO. He couldn’t. In fact, he discovered that not only had Perlman and his team at Rearden done something that nobody else had thought of, but it worked remarkably well. “That was really the first time I got official confirmation that we were not rabidly insane,” laughed Perlman.

Some still doubt that Shannon’s theorem can be violated, given that it has been proved mathematically. “I think there is essentially no chance that there is a mistake there given that it is such a well-studied theorem,” says Kyle Cranmer, assistant professor of physics at New York University. “However, the assumptions that the theorem is based on may be violated, in which case it’s not applicable, not that it’s wrong.”"

His company is named after a character from Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden:

"d'Anconia asks Rearden what sort of advice he would give Atlas upon seeing that "the greater [the titan's] effort, the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders". With Rearden unable to answer, d'Anconia gives his own response: "To shrug"."

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-perlman-rearden-2011-7

"Steve Perlman was one of the co-founders of WebTV, which Microsoft bought for close to half a billion dollars.
Since then, he's been building crazy, amazing invention after crazy, amazing invention out of his incubator in Silicon Valley.

Perlman thinks of himself as an inventor in the mold of Thomas Edison and complains that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs aren't ambitious enough and are chasing dinky social media startups instead of trying to solve really hard problems.

- Perlman got into programming and electronics because his parents wouldn't buy him an Apple II--so he built his own computer"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Perlman

"1976-1983 Building his first computer from a kit during high school in 1976, Perlman proceeded to design and build several computers, graphics/video systems, modems, displays, audio systems, interface devices and video games, as well as all kinds of software, both for fun and for clients. Perlman graduated from Columbia University in 1983.

1983-1984 Perlman designed a parallel-processing graphics system at Atari. At Coleco, Perlman developed a massively-parallel 3D animation chip and a software-based high-speed modem.

In 1985 Perlman joined Apple Computer on the development team of some Macintosh multimedia technology including Road pizza, the video codec used by the first version of QuickTime 1.[2][3]

In 1990 Perlman left Apple to join General Magic, where he designed its second-generation technology.[2]

In 1994 Perlman co-founded Catapult Entertainment and was its Chief technical officer. Catapult developed the proprietary XBAND modems for the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo Entertainment System video game consoles that enabled online features for multiplayer games.[2][4]

In 1995 Perlman created, co-founded, and was the President & CEO of WebTV Networks, Inc. WebTV was introduced in 1996, and was one the earliest products to connect the Internet to a television. Less than 2 years after it was founded, WebTV was acquired by Microsoft Corporation for US$425 million,[5] and renamed as MSN TV.[2][6] Microsoft’s acquisition of WebTV also brought with it the teams that created Microsoft’s TV platforms,[2] including the hardware for Microsoft's Xbox 360.[7]

After a few years at Microsoft, Perlman left WebTV Networks in 1999 to found Rearden Steel, now Rearden, a business incubator for new companies in media and entertainment technology.[2]

In 2000 Rearden founded Moxi Digital, Inc., which produced a combination digital video recorder, DVD player, digital music jukebox, and television set-top box. Moxi merged[8] with Microsoft founder Paul Allen's Digeo in 2002.

In 2004 Rearden founded MOVA,[9] which was spun off from Rearden in 2007 as an OnLive subsidiary. MOVA offers motion-capture services in the San Francisco Bay Area, with Perlman as its president.[9] In 2006 Perlman unveiled Mova's Contour, a digital multi-camera system that captures and tracks detailed surface data and textures for post-production manipulation. It was used for 3D volumetric shape capture of Brad Pitt’s face in the film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,[10] which received the 2008 Academy Award for Achievement in Visual Effects[11] for the photorealism achieved in computer-generated reverse-aging of Brad Pitt’s face.

In 2007 Rearden spun-out OnLive, which in 2009 announced the OnLive on-demand video game service and MicroConsole TV adapter, with Perlman as its president and CEO.[12] The company launched the OnLive game service in June, 2010 in the US and September 22, 2011 in the UK and was initially offered on the PC, Macintosh and TV via OnLive's MicroConsole, and then later on the iPad, iPhone and Android Tablets and smartphones.[13][14]

In 2011 Perlman announced that he and colleagues at Rearden have invented Distributed-Input-Distributed-Output (DIDO) technology, an experimental wireless communications system they claim will render cellular connections obsolete.[15][16][17]

By December 2011, OnLive's catalog had grown to over 30 games,[18] with about 3 games supporting touchscreen control.[13]

In August 2012, OnLive filed for bankruptcy and was sold to one of its investors and Perlman left the company.[19][20]

In early 2014, Perlman launched DIDO commercially as Artemis pCell, promising much higher speeds than existing 4G mobile networks are capable of. There is also evidence suggesting that pCell could also be used for not just communication, but wireless power transfer."

Although OnLive went bankrupt, Gaikai used similar tech and Sony bought them out for $380m and will use it to stream older Playstation games to devices. This tech can stream entire operating systems in real-time. You can for example be sitting on a beach in Hawaii with an iPad and editing 4K master footage that sits 1000 miles away - the software doesn't need to be on the iPad nor does the footage, it just needs the UI transmitted.

It's probably best that he's out working on his own thing but think of all the things he could do with Apple's resources. The Apple TV could use the streaming tech for apps. pcell tech could launch in iOS devices and Apple could distribute the cells. The retina tech would be the ultimate advance though and much better than a dynamic user interface. No more displays (IPS/OLED etc), full 16 bpc color, fully touch-enabled, if it can use body heat for power, it can receive signals from a pocket device wirelessly or a local pcell device.

This is the ultimate human-computer interface. Using the Hawaii example, if you had contact lenses that ran from body heat and had a pcell near the beach, the contact lenses could connect to it and live stream an OS from 1000 miles away. This can superimpose a UI into your field of view but it can do it while you had sunglasses on (glasses wouldn't be required though like current inferior tech). It can use a 3D gesture device sitting beside you and you can control any software you want with no computer in sight. You wouldn't be allowed to drive with them but we'll have driverless cars by then anyway.
post #54 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

SOT

If this is real ...

That guy is awesome ...


Yeah, it seems too good to be true -- and Perlman appears to be quite a pitchman!

I've been trying to figure out [understand] what's being transmitted & how it works.

I did a lot of surfing but haven't found a detail explanation of the tech.

The best I can determine is:
  • the user's device [pCell] location is determined by trilaterating signals from in-range pCell transceivers
  • the central servers divide a signal to be sent to a user's device [pCell] by separating the full-strength * signal into lower-power sub-signals
  • the sub-signals are sent simultaneously through multiple pCell transceivers
  • the low-power sub-signals converge only at the user's device [pCell], where they are combined into a full-strength signal
  • other nearby pCell devices would have a different location and would ignore the low-power sub-signals as noise

* I use strength to indicate that they are partial (degraded, out of phase...?) signals -- IDK if that is the tech, but you get the idea
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/1/14 at 11:48am
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #55 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Yeah, it seems too good to be true -- and Perlman appears to be quite a pitchman!

I've been trying to figure out [understand] what's being transmitted & how it works.

I did a lot of surfing but haven't found a detail explanation of the tech.

The best I can determine is:
  • the user's device [pCell] location is determined by trilaterating signals from in-range pCell transceivers
  • the central servers divide a signal to be sent to a user's device [pCell] by separating the full-strength * signal into lower-power sub-signals
  • the sub-signals are sent simultaneously through multiple pCell transceivers
  • the low-power sub-signals converge only at the user's device [pCell], where they are combined into a full-strength signal
  • other nearby pCell devices would have a different location and would ignore the low-power sub-signals as noise

* I use strength to indicate that they are partial (degraded, out of phase...?) signals -- IDK if that is the tech, but you get the idea

That sounds like what they're doing. There's a page here with some details:

http://akbars.net/how-steve-perlmans-revolutionary-wireless-technology-works-and-why-its-a-bigger-deal-than-anyone-realizes.html

They are trying to give each user the full bandwidth of available channels by sending unique signals instead of signals that conflict and create dead zones. Modern modems try to use multiple antennas but that's still going to be limited, still having bandwidth variation and uses more power. The pcell setup is doing the splitting in software using a data center in real-time. They say it scales linearly with the number of users.

There's a video here that doesn't really explain the tech but it demonstrates the usage again and says it can potentially be the way 4K video is broadcast, before it comes to cable networks. They used a Macbook Pro to show the 4K video as it's one of the few laptops that can handle 4K video:



As for the extra benefits mentioned, the above site talked about wireless power. Perlman said there was a hint in the video he showed at the start. The antenna systems are very low power (1milliWatt - 100x lower than normal antenna systems), maybe they can transmit power wirelessly to devices by bumping up the antenna power for that purpose:



Mobile devices max out around 2W so maybe that's possible, I didn't see an indication of that in the video though. Live streaming was shown so someone at a music gig or sports event broadcasting live from a phone to multiple people. The tech doesn't have to replace current cellular tech entirely as it might not work well in fast motion like on a train but it can ease the congestion. Even if it's used inside and near buildings, it takes the congestion out of more open areas.
post #56 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Yeah, it seems too good to be true -- and Perlman appears to be quite a pitchman!

I've been trying to figure out [understand] what's being transmitted & how it works.

I did a lot of surfing but haven't found a detail explanation of the tech.

The best I can determine is:
  • the user's device [pCell] location is determined by trilaterating signals from in-range pCell transceivers
  • the central servers divide a signal to be sent to a user's device [pCell] by separating the full-strength * signal into lower-power sub-signals
  • the sub-signals are sent simultaneously through multiple pCell transceivers
  • the low-power sub-signals converge only at the user's device [pCell], where they are combined into a full-strength signal
  • other nearby pCell devices would have a different location and would ignore the low-power sub-signals as noise

* I use strength to indicate that they are partial (degraded, out of phase...?) signals -- IDK if that is the tech, but you get the idea

That sounds like what they're doing. There's a page here with some details:

http://akbars.net/how-steve-perlmans-revolutionary-wireless-technology-works-and-why-its-a-bigger-deal-than-anyone-realizes.html

They are trying to give each user the full bandwidth of available channels by sending unique signals instead of signals that conflict and create dead zones. Modern modems try to use multiple antennas but that's still going to be limited, still having bandwidth variation and uses more power. The pcell setup is doing the splitting in software using a data center in real-time. They say it scales linearly with the number of users.

There's a video here that doesn't really explain the tech but it demonstrates the usage again and says it can potentially be the way 4K video is broadcast, before it comes to cable networks. They used a Macbook Pro to show the 4K video as it's one of the few laptops that can handle 4K video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bO0tjAdOIw


As for the extra benefits mentioned, the above site talked about wireless power. Perlman said there was a hint in the video he showed at the start. The antenna systems are very low power (1milliWatt - 100x lower than normal antenna systems), maybe they can transmit power wirelessly to devices by bumping up the antenna power for that purpose:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIpUqlhXNFQ


Mobile devices max out around 2W so maybe that's possible, I didn't see an indication of that in the video though. Live streaming was shown so someone at a music gig or sports event broadcasting live from a phone to multiple people. The tech doesn't have to replace current cellular tech entirely as it might not work well in fast motion like on a train but it can ease the congestion. Even if it's used inside and near buildings, it takes the congestion out of more open areas.

I'd seen the first video, but not the second -- thanks for the link.

Oddly, in trying to understand the tech, I focused on wave form -- particularly EMR. Don't much understand it -- my mind goes blank when I see a Σ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation


It is also interesting that the demo at Columbia used standard LTE iPhones -- later videos replaced [relinked] some existing videos to other videos with a custom radio attached to the back of the device.


Now, I'm really confused ... the relinked videos Standard LTE ---> Custom Radio have been unlinked back to Standard LTE -- what a difference a day makes ... makes me feel uncomfortable (skeptical). I can't show any links, because they're gone ...


Here's another video:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/sculley-pcell-changes-rules-for-mobile-wireless-t1i3VbxKR8OhFkGOOThRsw.html

So, what I'm taking away from all this is:
  • pCell LTE cell networks have potentially greater capacity/bandwidth than cable networks deliver to the home -- they solve/bypass the "last mile" problem
  • they can/will replace cable
  • non-LTE pCell devices can work on the same pCell and reduce the cost of the mobile device (no cell radio hardware and licensing fees)
  • by using EMR, battery usage/power becomes a non-issue -- when you use your mobile device, it is being recharged


Oh, BTW ... from the first video, Perlman said that the pCell transceivers could be submerged -- I wonder what the opportunity is there ...


P.P.S. I wish that someone would write an AI article on this pCell tech -- it would be great to take advantage of all the knowledge, talent and skepticism on the AI forums.
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/1/14 at 8:15pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #57 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Now, I'm really confused ... the relinked videos Standard LTE ---> Custom Radio have been unlinked back to Standard LTE -- what a difference a day makes ... makes me feel uncomfortable (skeptical). I can't show any links, because they're gone ...

They managed to get the technology to work with existing devices with LTE antennas. Some of the laptops they showed have radios. The demo where they overlap the phones is to show that if it was using standard LTE, they would interfere and break up the video like this:



That's interesting, he said he's under NDA with the wireless carriers and the tech could roll out Q4 2014. The carriers don't have much choice as he said because if they wouldn't let them use the licensed spectrum, they use the unlicensed spectrum. The question is though, how do they monetize this? This pretty much puts an end to data charges, texting charges, it's unlimited broadband for mobile like in the home. Do all the carriers share pcells and data centers or deploy their own? There won't be such a thing as an antenna tied to one carrier like CDMA/GSM so it's going to eventually become a case where the lowest price wins because they'll all offer the same service. This may be where we start to see carriers trying to control access to exclusive online content to win contracts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

pCell LTE cell networks have potentially greater capacity/bandwidth than cable networks deliver to the home -- they solve/bypass the "last mile" problem

I doubt they have greater bandwidth than a direct wire but not everyone gets the same quality. This should at least ensure everyone gets very good bandwidth. 4K video can work over 20Mbps but if it was 20-50 sustained, that would be fine. A wire can be 1 gigabit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

they can/will replace cable

There still has to be a backhaul system somewhere but it could easily replace the idea of having a cable fed into your home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

non-LTE pCell devices can work on the same pCell and reduce the cost of the mobile device (no cell radio hardware and licensing fees)

Can it work off the wifi antenna? I figured that's why they were using the LTE antennas and separate radios for wifi-only devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

by using EMR, battery usage/power becomes a non-issue -- when you use your mobile device, it is being recharged

Most wireless communication uses EMR, they just don't use it for power. That's what a lot of sensationalist media goes on about with wireless tech and power lines:

http://vimeo.com/7625314

They think that EMR is inducing electrical currents into the brain. Check this site out:

http://bioenergy.timleitch.net.nz/emf_articles/emf_affects_your_brain.htm

The scrolling banner at the top gives a warning that the PC you're using is causing harm and you need protection! They don't have any tinfoil hats in the products section though, just pendants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Oh, BTW ... from the first video, Perlman said that the pCell transceivers could be submerged -- I wonder what the opportunity is there ...

Divers need access to porn too. If they put the antennas on the bottom of a boat, they might be able to live stream underwater activity - they said the signals don't get the same interference problems with walls so maybe it's true with water too. Swimmers could get audio streamed to their waterproof Sony headphones. Some other potential uses in general:

- live music streaming everywhere (no more classic iPod)
- real-time traffic data everywhere
- home temperature control monitoring (city-wide)
- uses in construction for material durability
- uses in medicine for applying to different radiation types e.g isolated XRay of a small part of the body

One thing I saw in the video is when they said 'closing a deal on Wall Street', the stock chosen was IBM. IBM has been experimenting with graphene for enhancing wireless communication:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57618058-76/ibms-graphene-based-circuitry-could-boost-wireless-communications/

The other stocks were AAPL going up and Zynga going down, which links up with his statement about tech companies investing in worthless social media startups instead of solving important issues.

The reason for experimenting with graphene is it can go to frequencies like 500GHz. Imagine having a processor that fast. They just need to figure out how to make it cheaply and use a band gap for digital signal processing and Intel would be very worried indeed. They wouldn't even need to sell them to the public though as they could operate them server-side. Ubiquitous fast network + super-fast server to serve lots of people at once.

One application that I'd considered was heating. Maybe too dangerous but instead of heating up air to blast around all over the place and escaping, why not just heat the body up directly like a microwave? If they can localize a particular kind of radiation wave around an antenna locator, you can have a phone in your pocket and it can create a warm zone. It won't help much if you don't have an antenna but it would still be more efficient than heating a whole room. Naturally you don't want to get cooked so it wouldn't have to be 750W or so like a microwave, it could just be a fraction of that. Compared to a 2kW heater, it would be more efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I wish that someone would write an AI article on this pCell tech -- it would be great to take advantage of all the knowledge, talent and skepticism on the AI forums.

I doubt people would be interested until it was a shipping product or one of the big companies had signed a deal with them.
post #58 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Now, I'm really confused ... the relinked videos Standard LTE ---> Custom Radio have been unlinked back to Standard LTE -- what a difference a day makes ... makes me feel uncomfortable (skeptical). I can't show any links, because they're gone ...


I am able to find a video which shows custom radios attached to the back of laptops -- other videos use LTE dongles.

Quote:


They managed to get the technology to work with existing devices with LTE antennas. Some of the laptops they showed have radios. The demo where they overlap the phones is to show that if it was using standard LTE, they would interfere and break up the video like this:



That's interesting -- a standard LTE cellphone (not a pCell) transmission interferes with a standard cable STB???

Quote:


That's interesting, he said he's under NDA with the wireless carriers and the tech could roll out Q4 2014. The carriers don't have much choice as he said because if they wouldn't let them use the licensed spectrum, they use the unlicensed spectrum. The question is though, how do they monetize this? This pretty much puts an end to data charges, texting charges, it's unlimited broadband for mobile like in the home. Do all the carriers share pcells and data centers or deploy their own? There won't be such a thing as an antenna tied to one carrier like CDMA/GSM so it's going to eventually become a case where the lowest price wins because they'll all offer the same service. This may be where we start to see carriers trying to control access to exclusive online content to win contracts.


The carriers (and ISPs) could setup their own pCells and data centers -- or share either or both. Monetization -- that may be a problem -- they would all be offering unlimited broadband mobile on a [not so] dumb pipe. Hopefully they would differentiate themselves by quality of service and support.

They could attempt to retain a modicum of control by controlling content, as you suggest, But, I see the bulk of content coming from the users at concerts, sports events, home videos, social content, etc. Also, there are existing studios/broadcasters/cable networks like ABC/ESPN and aggregators like NetFlix that already have access to most of the existing content -- I suspect that they would be reluctant to limit their content to a single carrier/ISP.

Then, there's the state/local/fed governments to contend with -- they will need to find a way to regulate and tax it ... sigh!

Quote:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

pCell LTE cell networks have potentially greater capacity/bandwidth than cable networks deliver to the home -- they solve/bypass the "last mile" problem

I doubt they have greater bandwidth than a direct wire but not everyone gets the same quality. This should at least ensure everyone gets very good bandwidth. 4K video can work over 20Mbps but if it was 20-50 sustained, that would be fine. A wire can be 1 gigabit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

they can/will replace cable

There still has to be a backhaul system somewhere but it could easily replace the idea of having a cable fed into your home.


According to Artemis' theory of serendipitous deployment, you place pCell Transceivers where they have easy access to a backhaul system or line-of-sight access to another pCell Transceiver that does.

Quote:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

non-LTE pCell devices can work on the same pCell and reduce the cost of the mobile device (no cell radio hardware and licensing fees)

Can it work off the wifi antenna? I figured that's why they were using the LTE antennas and separate radios for wifi-only devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

by using EMR, battery usage/power becomes a non-issue -- when you use your mobile device, it is being recharged

Most wireless communication uses EMR, they just don't use it for power. That's what a lot of sensationalist media goes on about with wireless tech and power lines:

http://vimeo.com/7625314

They think that EMR is inducing electrical currents into the brain. Check this site out:

http://bioenergy.timleitch.net.nz/emf_articles/emf_affects_your_brain.htm

The scrolling banner at the top gives a warning that the PC you're using is causing harm and you need protection! They don't have any tinfoil hats in the products section though, just pendants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Oh, BTW ... from the first video, Perlman said that the pCell transceivers could be submerged -- I wonder what the opportunity is there ...

Divers need access to porn too. If they put the antennas on the bottom of a boat, they might be able to live stream underwater activity - they said the signals don't get the same interference problems with walls so maybe it's true with water too. Swimmers could get audio streamed to their waterproof Sony headphones. Some other potential uses in general:

- live music streaming everywhere (no more classic iPod)
- real-time traffic data everywhere
- home temperature control monitoring (city-wide)
- uses in construction for material durability
- uses in medicine for applying to different radiation types e.g isolated XRay of a small part of the body

One thing I saw in the video is when they said 'closing a deal on Wall Street', the stock chosen was IBM. IBM has been experimenting with graphene for enhancing wireless communication:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57618058-76/ibms-graphene-based-circuitry-could-boost-wireless-communications/

The other stocks were AAPL going up and Zynga going down, which links up with his statement about tech companies investing in worthless social media startups instead of solving important issues.

The reason for experimenting with graphene is it can go to frequencies like 500GHz. Imagine having a processor that fast. They just need to figure out how to make it cheaply and use a band gap for digital signal processing and Intel would be very worried indeed. They wouldn't even need to sell them to the public though as they could operate them server-side. Ubiquitous fast network + super-fast server to serve lots of people at once.


Mmm ... I think that IBM still has foundries ... If this tech takes off, it could have a serious effect [death knell] on radio designers/manufacturers/licensors. The current cell phones have radios for LTE/GSM. WiFi and Bluetooth -- these could be replaced with a single pCell radio, say, within the next 5 years.

Quote:



One application that I'd considered was heating. Maybe too dangerous but instead of heating up air to blast around all over the place and escaping, why not just heat the body up directly like a microwave? If they can localize a particular kind of radiation wave around an antenna locator, you can have a phone in your pocket and it can create a warm zone. It won't help much if you don't have an antenna but it would still be more efficient than heating a whole room. Naturally you don't want to get cooked so it wouldn't have to be 750W or so like a microwave, it could just be a fraction of that. Compared to a 2kW heater, it would be more efficient.


I think heating the body would be a tough sell. However you could conntrol radiant heating in a wall or manipulate vents or plenums in existing HVAC to heat individual rooms. I suppose the closest you could get is to heat/cool an individual's clothes.

Quote:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I wish that someone would write an AI article on this pCell tech -- it would be great to take advantage of all the knowledge, talent and skepticism on the AI forums.

I doubt people would be interested until it was a shipping product or one of the big companies had signed a deal with them.


True -- That will be the ultimate test!


There is [at least] one thing that continues to bother me -- the size of the pCell is 1 centimeter ... I don't know how they can transmit intersecting signals that are that precise at any distance. I've done some experimenting using iBeacons to trilaterate the location of an iDevice and accuracy is only meaningful within 0-5 feet.

I suppose, the pCell signals could include the MAC address (or some such) of the device to differentiate the signals???
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/2/14 at 5:32am
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #59 of 75
Just a bit more on this ...

the pCell (DIDO) tech apparently supports SkyWave -- bouncing signals ff the ionosphere to extend signal range:





http://www.rearden.com/DIDO/DIDO_White_Paper_110727.pdf
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #60 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I wish that someone would write an AI article on this pCell tech -- it would be great to take advantage of all the knowledge, talent and skepticism on the AI forums.

A short article could indeed stir up some knowledgeable people here creating a must read thread, though together here with Marvin you are already making my nights short and my reads long.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #61 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

A short article could indeed stir up some knowledgeable people here creating a must read thread, though together here with Marvin you are already making my nights short and my reads long.
I vigorously second this motion!

All I can say at this point: WOW! @Marvin and @Dick Applebaum thanks for bringing these new ideas and tech to light for some of us that don't get out as much as you guys do 1smile.gif

And again, too bad this is all stuck at the end of a "dead thread" that a lot of other knowledgable folks around here wont see unless they have subscriptions and email notifications turned on.

AI bringing something to light rather than regurgitating rumors, stirring up the trolls, or in constant DED defensive mode would be doing something noble and exciting for a change.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #62 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

I vigorously second this motion!

@Corrections maybe you can tell a friend about this topic? Should allow for a couple of "this all happened before"'s 1cool.gif
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #63 of 75
The key to understanding the possible limitation of pcell which is most likely some form of CoMP, massive MIMO or CloudRAN is the need for very low latency backhaul and scaling.

Yes, he states scaling is linear which is good up to a point. From the patent filings it appears that for N users they need M antennas. As N increases M increases linearly. As long as the ratio is decent this scales economically.

The other potential bottleneck is low latency backhaul requirement. It may be that they need direct line of sight microwave backhaul with few hops not because of economy or speed but because the fiber backhauls to towers introduce too much latency for them to do the calculations required. This is the traditional Achilles heel of network mimo.

Probably they have solved 90% of the problems AND gotten it to work on traditional LTE phones and that's killer. But if the need for low latency backhaul and a large number of antennas it's not going to be as simple a deployment as putting one of their antennas on existing towers...even those upgraded recently to a fiber connection from older T1 copper.
post #64 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The key to understanding the possible limitation of pcell which is most likely some form of CoMP, massive MIMO or CloudRAN is the need for very low latency backhaul and scaling.

Yes, he states scaling is linear which is good up to a point. From the patent filings it appears that for N users they need M antennas. As N increases M increases linearly. As long as the ratio is decent this scales economically.

The other potential bottleneck is low latency backhaul requirement. It may be that they need direct line of sight microwave backhaul with few hops not because of economy or speed but because the fiber backhauls to towers introduce too much latency for them to do the calculations required. This is the traditional Achilles heel of network mimo.

Probably they have solved 90% of the problems AND gotten it to work on traditional LTE phones and that's killer. But if the need for low latency backhaul and a large number of antennas it's not going to be as simple a deployment as putting one of their antennas on existing towers...even those upgraded recently to a fiber connection from older T1 copper.

It appears that low-latency backhaul is addressed by Artemis' "Serendipitous Deployment" where the deployment of their Transceivers is largely determined by access to backhaul (line of sight Microwave or fiber cable) and cost of deployment.

Because Artemis takes advantage of interference it appears that target devices can be served by placing their transceivers anywhere -- not limited to existing towers, And these transceivers can broadcast at more power and for longer distances than current cell placements. Also, I suspect that a future, more robust Artemis transceiver could perform partial [distance/location/tracking ?] calculations on, say, the 50-100 nearest pCell devices;  then transmit that to the servers for simpler [faster] trilateration and pCell intersection wave calculation -- reducing the latency and scaling requirements of the servers.

If the pCell can also be used to charge/maintain the battery power in the target device -- then the target device, itself, could take the place of the "more robust transceiver" discussed above. I am experimenting with trilateration calculations on iDevices with iBeacons -- and the calculations are fast. An iPhone with an A7 and an M7 could efficient perform these calculations, as needed -- as indicated by the M7 when movement or direction changes.

Artemis claims that a native pCell radio in the device (or the LTE radio supporting pCell) uses a fraction of the power required by a WiFi -- and, it appears, that it provides faster and more precise location positioning.

I am trying to look at this pCell system from a skeptically optimistic perspective -- If doable, it has some amazing potential.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #65 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

It appears that low-latency backhaul is addressed by Artemis' "Serendipitous Deployment" where the deployment of their Transceivers is largely determined by access to backhaul (line of sight Microwave or fiber cable) and cost of deployment.

 

It's only serendipitous if you can find it.  Regions with lots of tall buildings with good LOS to each other is serendipitous.  Regions where LOS is limited is not so serendipitous.

 

This is called handwaving.  The issue here is dependent on the existing backhaul topology.  Daisy chain is probably worst because of the number of hops increasing your latency but that's what many 2G and 3G backhaul networks were doing.  Hub and spoke would be best (and probably closest tot their microwave topology) but few deployments are this way.  Mesh would be next best or perhaps Tiered.

 

If you have a lot of tall buildings like SF or NY great.  If you are in suburbia probably not so great.  It depends on the latency requirements for p-cell to work and the average and worst case latency for the backhaul topology you have to work with.

 

Quote:
Because Artemis takes advantage of interference it appears that target devices can be served by placing their transceivers anywhere -- not limited to existing towers, 

 

If you are deploying in suburbia then you can't place your transcievers anywhere because there are few sites with good LOS with each other or the central hub.  You ARE limited to the existing towers because that's where the backhaul is.  If you are deploying to a region where they ripped out the older daisy chain topology and replaced it with a topology with sufficiently low latency to let pcell work then that's fine.

 

Some markets will be in a more favorable state for massive MIMO deployment.  Others won't.

 

Quote:
And these transceivers can broadcast at more power and for longer distances than current cell placements. Also, I suspect that a future, more robust Artemis transceiver could perform partial [distance/location/tracking ?] calculations on, say, the 50-100 nearest pCell devices;  then transmit that to the servers for simpler [faster] trilateration and pCell intersection wave calculation -- reducing the latency and scaling requirements of the servers.

 

Transmitting a bearing and range estimate vs just signal and bearing isn't going to greatly reduce your latency requirements to the central servers doing the calculations for beam forming and traffic encoding.  As only one tower you can't get more than bearing and range estimate.

 

The scaling requirements are not so important for the servers.  The scaling requirements are important with relation to the number of antennas to service users.

 

Quote:
If the pCell can also be used to charge/maintain the battery power in the target device -- then the target device, itself, could take the place of the "more robust transceiver" discussed above. I am experimenting with trilateration calculations on iDevices with iBeacons -- and the calculations are fast. An iPhone with an A7 and an M7 could efficient perform these calculations, as needed -- as indicated by the M7 when movement or direction changes.

Artemis claims that a native pCell radio in the device (or the LTE radio supporting pCell) uses a fraction of the power required by a WiFi -- and, it appears, that it provides faster and more precise location positioning.

I am trying to look at this pCell system from a skeptically optimistic perspective -- If doable, it has some amazing potential.

 

Yes, the geolocation feature is very useful and could provide more position data to the server.  As is it the iPhones are most likely using existing LTE features to return signal strength data.  As far as doing more processing on the device it still depends on how fast that data gets back to the central server.   Again, you're limited by backhaul and its latency unless you're not moving that much.

 

/shrug

 

Everybody hopes stuff like this works.  The theory behind it seems reasonably well understood, it's just the engineering challenges have been significant for deployment.  It looks like they may be years ahead of other folks working in this domain in terms of deployable technology/software.  If so great.  If not then we'll get pretty much the same thing when 5G technology deploys.

 

Here's the deal though...they're dealing with incumbents without a huge interest in disruption.  Something he points out himself.  It requires someone like Apple or Google with billions to fund such disruption if the incumbents balk because telcom CAPEX would run even Apple's warchest dry in short order.  TMobile or (brrrr...Sprint...yuck) might make a good partner and they're most likely to jump on board.

post #66 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

It appears that low-latency backhaul is addressed by Artemis' "Serendipitous Deployment" where the deployment of their Transceivers is largely determined by access to backhaul (line of sight Microwave or fiber cable) and cost of deployment.

It's only serendipitous if you can find it.  Regions with lots of tall buildings with good LOS to each other is serendipitous.  Regions where LOS is limited is not so serendipitous.

How are these areas [limited LOS] being served currently? Cell towers... Whatever? If this is the case, couldn't the pCell transceiver be mounted on the same "whatever" and broadcast stronger [partial] signals for a longer range and share the backhaul available? Wouldn't that be at least as good or better than the present service? In some rural areas Artemis is using SkyWave to bounce signals off the ionosphere to mitigate LOS problems. I read about a remote village that has a cell tower in the highest tree in the area.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/cellulars-open-source-future-is-latched-to-tallest-tree-in-the-village/

Quote:
This is called handwaving.  The issue here is dependent on the existing backhaul topology.  Daisy chain is probably worst because of the number of hops increasing your latency but that's what many 2G and 3G backhaul networks were doing.  Hub and spoke would be best (and probably closest tot their microwave topology) but few deployments are this way.  Mesh would be next best or perhaps Tiered.

I am familiar with most network topologies (sold/installed my first star topology LAN in 1980) or I can surf to find them, but I can't find a good explanation of "Tiered" -- got a link?

Quote:
If you have a lot of tall buildings like SF or NY great.  If you are in suburbia probably not so great.  It depends on the latency requirements for p-cell to work and the average and worst case latency for the backhaul topology you have to work with.
Quote:
Because Artemis takes advantage of interference it appears that target devices can be served by placing their transceivers anywhere -- not limited to existing towers, 

If you are deploying in suburbia then you can't place your transcievers anywhere because there are few sites with good LOS with each other or the central hub.  You ARE limited to the existing towers because that's where the backhaul is.  If you are deploying to a region where they ripped out the older daisy chain topology and replaced it with a topology with sufficiently low latency to let pcell work then that's fine.

Some markets will be in a more favorable state for massive MIMO deployment.  Others won't.
Quote:
And these transceivers can broadcast at more power and for longer distances than current cell placements. Also, I suspect that a future, more robust Artemis transceiver could perform partial [distance/location/tracking ?] calculations on, say, the 50-100 nearest pCell devices;  then transmit that to the servers for simpler [faster] trilateration and pCell intersection wave calculation -- reducing the latency and scaling requirements of the servers.

Transmitting a bearing and range estimate vs just signal and bearing isn't going to greatly reduce your latency requirements to the central servers doing the calculations for beam forming and traffic encoding.  As only one tower you can't get more than bearing and range estimate.

The scaling requirements are not so important for the servers.  The scaling requirements are important with relation to the number of antennas to service users.


I assumed that each pCell transceiver would provide the bearing and range for the n nearest target pCell devices and send these to the servers. The servers would select the subset that are nearest to the target pCell (likely 3-5), do the trilateration and wave intersect calculations and send those out through the selected subset transceivers.

Quote:

Quote:
If the pCell can also be used to charge/maintain the battery power in the target device -- then the target device, itself, could take the place of the "more robust transceiver" discussed above. I am experimenting with trilateration calculations on iDevices with iBeacons -- and the calculations are fast. An iPhone with an A7 and an M7 could efficient perform these calculations, as needed -- as indicated by the M7 when movement or direction changes.

Artemis claims that a native pCell radio in the device (or the LTE radio supporting pCell) uses a fraction of the power required by a WiFi -- and, it appears, that it provides faster and more precise location positioning.

I am trying to look at this pCell system from a skeptically optimistic perspective -- If doable, it has some amazing potential.

Yes, the geolocation feature is very useful and could provide more position data to the server.  As is it the iPhones are most likely using existing LTE features to return signal strength data.  As far as doing more processing on the device it still depends on how fast that data gets back to the central server.   Again, you're limited by backhaul and its latency unless you're not moving that much.

/shrug

Well, now, it seems that, at least in the US, the cell carriers/providers are currently (or soon to be) required to identify (track?) your location to satisfy mobile 911 calls. I suspect that it will be easier to continuously monitor (track?) your location -- than to check for a 911 call and then , attempt to initiate detection of your location.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services

http://firstaid.about.com/od/callingforhelp/bb/cell911.htm

Quote:
Everybody hopes stuff like this works.  The theory behind it seems reasonably well understood, it's just the engineering challenges have been significant for deployment.  It looks like they may be years ahead of other folks working in this domain in terms of deployable technology/software.  If so great.  If not then we'll get pretty much the same thing when 5G technology deploys.

Here's the deal though...they're dealing with incumbents without a huge interest in disruption.  Something he points out himself.  It requires someone like Apple or Google with billions to fund such disruption if the incumbents balk because telcom CAPEX would run even Apple's warchest dry in short order.  TMobile or (brrrr...Sprint...yuck) might make a good partner and they're most likely to jump on board.


Didn't Edison require/promote direct current for his light bulbs and motors?
Quote:
Edison's company had invested heavily in DC technology and was vigorously defending its DC based patents. George Westinghouse saw AC as a way to get into the business with his own patented competing system and set up the Westinghouse Electric Company to design and build it. The Westinghouse company also purchased the patents for alternating current devices from inventors in Europe and licensed patents from Nikola Tesla. In spite of a protracted anti-AC campaign waged by the Edison company, the economics of the alternating current system prevailed. Alternating current was selected in 1893 for transmission of power from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, New York - the technical and economic success of this project lead the way for the adoption of alternating current as the preferred electrical system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents


Well, if this is real, it is a technology whose time has come (overdue, actually) -- and I don't think anyone will be able to stop it ... As long as governments can find a way to tax and regulate it.


Edit: This is exactly the type of discussion that can benefit from the broad range of talent and experience on AI forums. I, personally, am learning more than I ever cared to know about EMR, cell radios, network topology, backhauls, politics involved and practicality of improvement in wireless/wired data transmission.

Thank you!
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/3/14 at 9:22am
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #67 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The key to understanding the possible limitation of pcell which is most likely some form of CoMP, massive MIMO or CloudRAN is the need for very low latency backhaul and scaling.

This was the main issue with their cloud streaming tech. They needed low enough latency to allow real-time interaction with games. To get 30FPS, the latency for the entire round trip should be below 1 frame or 1/30 second = 33 millisecond latency - same reason computer displays have to be low latency too, they are normally below 10ms now (older IPS display were 20ms or higher so not suitable for 60FPS gaming that needs <16ms). Some home internet connections had enough bandwidth but if they had 50-100ms latency, the game lags behind the player controlling it.

In the case of a mobile phone pcell connection, the latency would mostly affect movement while using the device. If you walk at 4kph (400,000cm/h = 111cm/s), they need to have latency of under 9 milliseconds for the phone not to move more than 1cm before the calculation round trip finished although the 1cm size could just be the interference bubble formed and not the range of movement possible. The claim is that they already have sub-millisecond latency, so say they have 0.99ms (0.00099s), that means travelling 4kph moves 0.1cm before the calculation is done. Moving at 40kph is 1cm. This might make it less ideal for use in fast transport but they might be able to compensate for it because these devices have accelerometers and gyros so it'll know how fast it was moving in any direction.

As for the latency of the backhaul, the signals pass through buildings and they said the transmitters can work 30 miles away (possible up to 250 miles) so I don't think they need to be as densely located because of the backhaul but rather the number of users and potentially, the pcells can bounce signals to nearby pcells at the speed of light. What would be ideal is if they could put the algorithms they use on the computers into silicon and do the calculations in hardware rather than software. That way a single pcell can calculate what's needed using data from other pcells. The downside is that this makes it hard to improve the network later but if it's able to manage the performance needed, that shouldn't be much of a requirement.

The biggest use for this would be in the home. You can have a pcell located somewhere at the end of the street or on the side of your house. This would give you 100% signal everywhere in your house and garden with full bandwidth.

We'll see what issues there are when they start to deploy it (possibly Q4 2014). It'll probably have a limited roll out and it doesn't need to instantly replace existing networks - they were talking about being able to jump from pcell networks to legacy ones seamlessly, I can't recall if they said it was possible but if it has a 30 mile range, they'd just have to make sure the software didn't connect when users were near the edge.
post #68 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The key to understanding the possible limitation of pcell which is most likely some form of CoMP, massive MIMO or CloudRAN is the need for very low latency backhaul and scaling.

This was the main issue with their cloud streaming tech. They needed low enough latency to allow real-time interaction with games. To get 30FPS, the latency for the entire round trip should be below 1 frame or 1/30 second = 33 millisecond latency - same reason computer displays have to be low latency too, they are normally below 10ms now (older IPS display were 20ms or higher so not suitable for 60FPS gaming that needs <16ms). Some home internet connections had enough bandwidth but if they had 50-100ms latency, the game lags behind the player controlling it.

In the case of a mobile phone pcell connection, the latency would mostly affect movement while using the device. If you walk at 4kph (400,000cm/h = 111cm/s), they need to have latency of under 9 milliseconds for the phone not to move more than 1cm before the calculation round trip finished although the 1cm size could just be the interference bubble formed and not the range of movement possible. The claim is that they already have sub-millisecond latency, so say they have 0.99ms (0.00099s), that means travelling 4kph moves 0.1cm before the calculation is done. Moving at 40kph is 1cm. This might make it less ideal for use in fast transport but they might be able to compensate for it because these devices have accelerometers and gyros so it'll know how fast it was moving in any direction.

Perlman may have addressed fast movement when he discussed the Doppler Effect. He said that pCell (or any ?) transceivers along a highway would have trouble with a car driving at highway speeds. To resolve this he said Artemis would use transceivers further down the highway ["into town"]. The effect would be less drastic the more distant the transceiver -- remembering that pCell transceivers can work at greater distance and more power because with pCell interference is expected rather than avoided.

I couldn't, quickly, locate a link -- but will post one later if I can find it ... too many damn videos 1confused.gif

Quote:
As for the latency of the backhaul, the signals pass through buildings and they said the transmitters can work 30 miles away (possible up to 250 miles) so I don't think they need to be as densely located because of the backhaul but rather the number of users and potentially, the pcells can bounce signals to nearby pcells at the speed of light. What would be ideal is if they could put the algorithms they use on the computers into silicon and do the calculations in hardware rather than software. That way a single pcell can calculate what's needed using data from other pcells. The downside is that this makes it hard to improve the network later but if it's able to manage the performance needed, that shouldn't be much of a requirement.

Yes! And, eventually into the target pCell device itself. Again, the matrix math to triangulate an iPhone from 3 signals can be accomplished in a fraction of a second. Here's a test I just ran on the iPhone 5S:
Quote:
====================================
Sphere 1: 0 0 0, radius 78.1
Sphere 2: 80 0 0, radius 67.09
Sphere 3: 0 100 0, radius 64.04
2014-03-03 11:01:23.243 iOS_Trilaterate_1[974:60b] ViewController.m:241 doit Before Trilateration
====================================
t1 = p3 - p1, t2 = ex (ex . (p3 - p1))........t1: 0 100 0
t1 = p3 - p1, t2 = ex (ex . (p3 - p1))........t2: 0 0 0 0
***************ey = (t1 - t2), t = |t1 - t2| ey: 0 100 0
***************ey = (t1 - t2), t = |t1 - t2| t: 100
***************ey = (t1 - t2), t = |t1 - t2| t > maxzero ey: 0 1 0
***************ey = (t1 - t2), t = |t1 - t2| t > maxzero j: 100
cross product 0 0 1
*************** z: 1.19504
*************** t2: 49.9909 59.9924 0
2014-03-03 11:01:23.244 iOS_Trilaterate_1[974:60b] ViewController.m:243 doit After Trilateration
====================================
Solution 1: 49.9909 59.9924 1.19504
Distance to sphere 1 is 78.1 (radius 78.1)
Distance to sphere 2 is 67.09 (radius 67.09)
Distance to sphere 3 is 64.04 (radius 64.04)
Solution 2: 49.9909 59.9924 -1.19504
Distance to sphere 1 is 78.1 (radius 78.1)
Distance to sphere 2 is 67.09 (radius 67.09)
Distance to sphere 3 is 64.04 (radius 64.04)

Note: this is doing 3D trilateration and could be refined and optimized significantly.

So, an iPhone 5S can trilaterate 3 signals in ~ .001 second!


IDK what is involved in calculating the signal intersects and generating the signals.

Quote:
The biggest use for this would be in the home. You can have a pcell located somewhere at the end of the street or on the side of your house. This would give you 100% signal everywhere in your house and garden with full bandwidth.

We'll see what issues there are when they start to deploy it (possibly Q4 2014). It'll probably have a limited roll out and it doesn't need to instantly replace existing networks - they were talking about being able to jump from pcell networks to legacy ones seamlessly, I can't recall if they said it was possible but if it has a 30 mile range, they'd just have to make sure the software didn't connect when users were near the edge.

I agree that it will be fantastic in the home.

But, if it can maintain/charge the mobile's battery -- that alone would be a winner for most users -- all that and bandwidth too!
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/3/14 at 11:25am
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #69 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

How are these areas [limited LOS] being served currently? Cell towers... Whatever? If this is the case, couldn't the pCell transceiver be mounted on the same "whatever" and broadcast stronger [partial] signals for a longer range and share the backhaul available? Wouldn't that be at least as good or better than the present service? 

 

Maybe.  Lets first be clear on three points:

 

  1. I'm not a subject matter expert (SME) in this domain
  2. I think there is fundamental research that shows promise so their claims (Ignoring some misdirection/marketspeak regarding shannon) are possible
  3. I'm not poo-pooing their accomplishments just because some of these techniques may have papers or lab trials elsewhere.  The neckbeard in the audience trying to poo-poo the presentation is an ass and the response entirely appropriate:  if you think it's trivial show me a working example.

 

Okay so where I come from is a background in writing software for network gear in a past life and knowing some folks that do SDR.  I haven't talked to any of them so my opinion is that of a layperson.

 

I looked at the literature surrounding coordinated multipoint/cooperative MIMO.  My guess is their technique is along these lines given their patent filings and the musings of folks on forums more knowledgable than I.

 

IF so then backhaul latency is potentially critical to be able to beamform sufficiently quickly to adapt to both movement and changing environmental factors.  You need updated channel state information (CSI) very quickly to coordinate multiple antennas sending signal to converge on the device and create a local maxima (aka virtual cell).  Do it wrong and that 1 cm virtual cell is in the wrong place.  They obviously do it very well...at least in the confines of an auditorium.

 

Read these and see if you come to the same conclusions I came to regarding backhaul requirements:

 

http://www.easy-c.com/publications/Irmer_ComMag_2011.pdf

 

"In the case of deployment of remote radio units connected to a centralized baseband processing unit via Ethernet or fiber links, COMP backhaul requirements should also be no obstacle."

 

That's the caveat.  They assume 0.1-20 μs delay because of direct connection via fiber or 150 μs/hop from microwave.  Backhaul latency in real towers to that central server is often much higher than this.  10ms round trip for LTE but much higher for 2G and 3G towers.

 

Something DOCOMO attempts to mitigate using clustering:

 

"We investigate coordinated multipoint (CoMP) multiuser multiple-input-and-multiple-output (multiuser-MIMO) downlink transmissions over mobile access networks yielding different backhaul constraints. The larger number of base stations (BSs) participating in CoMP, the higher user throughput can be expected if there is no constraint in mobile backhaul networks. Limited capacity and latency in mobile backhaul networks impose constraints on the number of BSs that can actually participate in CoMP. We propose a CoMP system architecture with multiple clustering steps that that takes into account these backhaul constraints and enables to avoid selecting BSs which do not have enough backhaul network capability."

 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=06139719

 

What the actual requirements of p-cell is unknown.  Maybe this is a non-issue.

 

Quote:
I am familiar with most network topologies (sold/installed my first star topology LAN in 1980) or I can surf to find them, but I can't find a good explanation of "Tiered" -- got a link?

 

AKA tree.  Hub and Spoke with branches with other hub and spokes.

post #70 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

if it can maintain/charge the mobile's battery -- that alone would be a winner for most users -- all that and bandwidth too!

I was also forgetting that it means the end to cellular calls because it would just use VOIP, which is a big improvement. This means they can put an end to phone numbers. You can use text strings for people instead. Skype and Facetime could be used more too, although WhatsApp probably less as there's no extra charges. Of course you're going to get people live streaming their life to some online services, that'll be the next celebrity-maker. Then people will walk up to these 'celebrities' as they are live streaming. Sooner or later it'll get to a point where they realise that going out and meeting normal people in the street is what people used to do in the first place all those years ago before technology took over.
post #71 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

if it can maintain/charge the mobile's battery -- that alone would be a winner for most users -- all that and bandwidth too!

I was also forgetting that it means the end to cellular calls because it would just use VOIP, which is a big improvement. This means they can put an end to phone numbers. You can use text strings for people instead. Skype and Facetime could be used more too, although WhatsApp probably less as there's no extra charges. Of course you're going to get people live streaming their life to some online services, that'll be the next celebrity-maker. Then people will walk up to these 'celebrities' as they are live streaming. Sooner or later it'll get to a point where they realise that going out and meeting normal people in the street is what people used to do in the first place all those years ago before technology took over.

Oooohhhh ... I hadn't thought of eliminating cel calls -- tho Perlman alludes to it, saying that something like an iPod (thinner than an iPhone) could have a native pCell radio and operate on the same network as LTE pCel devices.

This also would mean that mobile devices would no longer need to include/license cell radios -- so device cost could go down as well as access/usage costs!

I was born in 1939. My dad was very much into radio tech. For my 10th BDay (supposedly) I/we got a 7" Hallicrafters TV. We were the first household for blocks around that had a TV. We had a console Philco radio that was 8 x larger than the TV.



It had buttons for channels 1-13 (Channel 1?), We lived in a suburb of Minneapolis and only 2 channels (4 and 5) broadcast and then only for a few hours in the evenings...

Yeah, conversation and meeting people is a forgotten art.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #72 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

How are these areas [limited LOS] being served currently? Cell towers... Whatever? If this is the case, couldn't the pCell transceiver be mounted on the same "whatever" and broadcast stronger [partial] signals for a longer range and share the backhaul available? Wouldn't that be at least as good or better than the present service? 

Maybe.  Lets first be clear on three points:
  1. I'm not a subject matter expert (SME) in this domain
  2. I think there is fundamental research that shows promise so their claims (Ignoring some misdirection/marketspeak regarding shannon) are possible
  3. I'm not poo-pooing their accomplishments just because some of these techniques may have papers or lab trials elsewhere.  The neckbeard in the audience trying to poo-poo the presentation is an ass and the response entirely appropriate:  if you think it's trivial show me a working example.

I agree about the asshole -- he walked in the middle of the preso -- then immediately began haranguing the presenter (he had a compatriot, too).

Quote:
Okay so where I come from is a background in writing software for network gear in a past life and knowing some folks that do SDR.  I haven't talked to any of them so my opinion is that of a layperson.

I looked at the literature surrounding coordinated multipoint/cooperative MIMO.  My guess is their technique is along these lines given their patent filings and the musings of folks on forums more knowledgable than I.

IF so then backhaul latency is potentially critical to be able to beamform sufficiently quickly to adapt to both movement and changing environmental factors.  You need updated channel state information (CSI) very quickly to coordinate multiple antennas sending signal to converge on the device and create a local maxima (aka virtual cell).  Do it wrong and that 1 cm virtual cell is in the wrong place.  They obviously do it very well...at least in the confines of an auditorium.

Read these and see if you come to the same conclusions I came to regarding backhaul requirements:

http://www.easy-c.com/publications/Irmer_ComMag_2011.pdf

Ha! The discussions about "interference" and what to do about it remind me of the CSMA/CD vs CSMA/CA (collision detection vs collision avoidance) wired LAN arguments of the 1980s. That was a tough read, but I found it was not necessarily in conflict with what we know about pCell. Perlman appears to understand the problems -- whether he has a practical solution is another matter.

Quote:
"In the case of 
deployment of remote radio units connected to a 
centralized baseband processing unit via Ethernet 
or fiber links, COMP backhaul requirements 
should also be no obstacle."


That's the caveat.  They assume 0.1-20 μs delay because of direct connection via fiber or 150
μs/hop from microwave.  Backhaul latency in real towers to that central server is often much higher than this.  10ms round trip for LTE but much higher for 2G and 3G towers.


Something DOCOMO attempts to mitigate using clustering:

"We investigate coordinated multipoint (CoMP) 
multiuser multiple-input-and-multiple-output (multiuser-MIMO) 
downlink transmissions over mobile access networks yielding 
different backhaul constraints. The larger number of base 
stations (BSs) participating in CoMP, the higher user throughput 
can be expected if there is no constraint in mobile backhaul 
networks. Limited capacity and latency in mobile backhaul 
networks impose constraints on the number of BSs that can 
actually participate in CoMP. We propose a CoMP system 
architecture with multiple clustering steps that that takes into 
account these backhaul constraints and enables to avoid selecting 
BSs which do not have enough backhaul network capability."




http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=06139719

This link is bad.

Quote:
What the actual requirements of p-cell is unknown.  Maybe this is a non-issue.
Quote:
I am familiar with most network topologies (sold/installed my first star topology LAN in 1980) or I can surf to find them, but I can't find a good explanation of "Tiered" -- got a link?

AKA tree.  Hub and Spoke with branches with other hub and spokes.

Oh ... A tree I understand from my old IMS/DLI hierarchical database experience. This is not a very efficient way to traverse a path.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #73 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

This link is bad.

 

Oh, sorry. I have a IEEE account.  Its sitting behind the IEEE paywall and I can't find an open copy.

post #74 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

This link is bad.

Oh, sorry. I have a IEEE account.  Its sitting behind the IEEE paywall and I can't find an open copy.


No problem!

Hmm ... Your definition of a tier topology being similar to a tree topology made me regress to the old hierarchical db topology ... There was this thing called "intersection data" that was unique and only existed at the logical intersection of 2 db segments -- at the intersection of an order line item segment and a part number segment there existed an unique order qty which belonged in neither, but only existed because if the intersection.

In modern relational, tabular databases, the same thing exists in a many-to-many relationship.

I bring this up, because it is very fast and efficient to locate this data with a simple SQL query.

And, it occurs to me that this is very similar to what the pCell servers must do to locate the target pCell and generate the intersecting signals.

And, both OSX and iOS support SQLite databases ...

I need to ruminate on this for a bit!
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/3/14 at 4:58pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #75 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Oooohhhh ... I hadn't thought of eliminating cel calls -- tho Perlman alludes to it, saying that something like an iPod (thinner than an iPhone) could have a native pCell radio and operate on the same network as LTE pCel devices.

This also would mean that mobile devices would no longer need to include/license cell radios -- so device cost could go down as well as access/usage costs!

I was born in 1939. My dad was very much into radio tech. For my 10th BDay (supposedly) I/we got a 7" Hallicrafters TV. We were the first household for blocks around that had a TV. We had a console Philco radio that was 8 x larger than the TV.

It had buttons for channels 1-13 (Channel 1?), We lived in a suburb of Minneapolis and only 2 channels (4 and 5) broadcast and then only for a few hours in the evenings...

Yeah, conversation and meeting people is a forgotten art.

Technology changes so fast it's easy to forget the effect it has on kids. I saw this earlier on today:



Pretty funny to see them trying to figure out how they'd text on a rotary phone. Some of them weren't sure what payphones are, you don't think about things like payphones going away but with so many people using mobiles, they might one day disappear:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/pay-phone-decline/4049599/

Telephone wires and corresponding poles can be removed eventually too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's dynamic user interface would adapt to user's proximity, allowing control from close & far