I see someone has been channeling an about.com-like site.
Anyways per the article:
Quote:
and aims to replace high definition video cables,
There already is a wireless HDMI standard. Besides, how much money is being spent to replace a $5 cable to connect two stationary (non-mobile) devices? If you're going to spend so much money on extra power consuming electronics to "hide" the wires, why not run the cables inside the walls? That's what I did. There's far less risk of interference, 60GHz is well beyond the point where just walking between the two components can seriously degrade signal quality.
internet cable pipeline is slow 10 base T and is the bottle neck anyway.
I'm streaming HD to apple tv with N ... works great. Only have the power wires, HDMI wire and speaker wires. Just not an issue for me. There will always be wires at least for power on these systems ... so who cares that they have to run and HDMI from a device like apple tv to the television?
I also stream video to my TV via AppleTV using N. It may be because I have so much content that the video pauses occasionally, or takes some time to sync. Plus my iTunes is backed up to an external HDD connected to my Airport Extreme Base wirelessly. However, I am sure that faster Wifi/network speeds will certainly help out.
If I could lose the HDMI cable from the AppleTV to the TV I'd be in heaven. As it is right now, I am limited in the configure my custom entertainment unit. I have to keep my AppleTV within a certain distance from the TV. Same as all of my other components... PS3, Xbox, Cable Box, Blu-ray Player, Receiver. If wires were not necessary I would have more freedom to design my unit without having to figure out where to hid the wires.
I suppose what I'm saying is, there are more people to think about then just yourself? So who cares if you don't care because many others will.
Who wants to place bets now that in 5 or 10 years it will be discovered that we were all scrambling our DNA or brain cells with the proliferation of wireless signals bouncing around and through our bodies.
I do think this needs a lot of research to be undertaken, funded by someone other than the wireless industry.
I'm not sure where I sit on the debate (though there does seem to be increasing evidence that mobile phones can cause tumors - http://www.encognitive.com/node/2859), but it does concern me that there seems to be a connection between funding of studies and their findings (i.e. studies funded by the wireless industry finds no health effects, studies funded elsewhere find there are health effects). NPR had an interesting story about this a couple of weeks ago, but I can't find it on their website, so can't provide a link (sorry!)
Given the seeming connection between study funding and study findings, it bothers me that this could become similar to the tobacco companies suppressing studies that linked smoking to lung cancer.
So who cares if you don't care because many others will.
I'm just stating an opinion in a message board like thousands of others before me, I'm not saying you have to agree.
But seriously I wouldn't hold my breath for this technology. All I see is what Steve Job's referred to with blu-ray is "a bag of hurt". Hope I'm wrong. I don't see apple plunging into this technology any more than they did with blu-ray. And Steve Job's is on board of blue-ray among all those major TV manufacturers.
not sure why you are having the stuttering problem on apple tv. My base station is 3 rooms away and no problems. I hear wireless telephones can create problems (I have none, so I'm not sure).
I actually wonder if Narrowly Directional Wireless Signal is possible? In theory it should save power, reduce interference, more consistent performance, and less harm to human.
i.e , In a WirelessHD environment, or Media Player to TV, the 60Ghz Signal will be only shooting at the TV Direction, and therefore extremely limited signal is absorbed by human, hence it is actually saver then WiFi.
I am just wondering how "narrow" direction can it get and if this is possible.
P.S - WiGig is still not fast enough compare to WirelessHD 2.0 - which is 10 - 14Gbps.
I actually wonder if Narrowly Directional Wireless Signal is possible? In theory it should save power, reduce interference, more consistent performance, and less harm to human.
i.e , In a WirelessHD environment, or Media Player to TV, the 60Ghz Signal will be only shooting at the TV Direction, and therefore extremely limited signal is absorbed by human, hence it is actually saver then WiFi.
I am just wondering how "narrow" direction can it get and if this is possible.
Directional will add costs, either with a mechanical pointing antenna that's prone to breaking, adding several automatically selectable antennas or adding a lot of complexity & cost by using phased arrays.
I actually wonder if Narrowly Directional Wireless Signal is possible? In theory it should save power, reduce interference, more consistent performance, and less harm to human.
i.e , In a WirelessHD environment, or Media Player to TV, the 60Ghz Signal will be only shooting at the TV Direction, and therefore extremely limited signal is absorbed by human, hence it is actually saver then WiFi.
I am just wondering how "narrow" direction can it get and if this is possible.
P.S - WiGig is still not fast enough compare to WirelessHD 2.0 - which is 10 - 14Gbps.
Adding a directional antenna will add support issues, since you'll have to aim it. Also, should you want to hide your gear inside a cabinet, you'll have to modify the cabinet in order to get a 60 GHz signal out of it. Should that cabinet be at the back of the room (with an IR remote extender or such), any time you stand up from the couch you'll likely block and scatter the 60 GHz signal as you are a big fleshy bag of water, and high frequency RF doesn't like water.
I just see using stuff at that high frequency outside of a couple feet of clear line-of-sight as being problematic, and causing a crap-ton of support calls.
Comments
("Apple files patent that allows butterflies to use rainbows for data transfer")
Could you provide a link?!!!
Anyways per the article:
and aims to replace high definition video cables,
There already is a wireless HDMI standard. Besides, how much money is being spent to replace a $5 cable to connect two stationary (non-mobile) devices? If you're going to spend so much money on extra power consuming electronics to "hide" the wires, why not run the cables inside the walls? That's what I did. There's far less risk of interference, 60GHz is well beyond the point where just walking between the two components can seriously degrade signal quality.
Don't care.
internet cable pipeline is slow 10 base T and is the bottle neck anyway.
I'm streaming HD to apple tv with N ... works great. Only have the power wires, HDMI wire and speaker wires. Just not an issue for me. There will always be wires at least for power on these systems ... so who cares that they have to run and HDMI from a device like apple tv to the television?
I also stream video to my TV via AppleTV using N. It may be because I have so much content that the video pauses occasionally, or takes some time to sync. Plus my iTunes is backed up to an external HDD connected to my Airport Extreme Base wirelessly. However, I am sure that faster Wifi/network speeds will certainly help out.
If I could lose the HDMI cable from the AppleTV to the TV I'd be in heaven. As it is right now, I am limited in the configure my custom entertainment unit. I have to keep my AppleTV within a certain distance from the TV. Same as all of my other components... PS3, Xbox, Cable Box, Blu-ray Player, Receiver. If wires were not necessary I would have more freedom to design my unit without having to figure out where to hid the wires.
I suppose what I'm saying is, there are more people to think about then just yourself? So who cares if you don't care because many others will.
Who wants to place bets now that in 5 or 10 years it will be discovered that we were all scrambling our DNA or brain cells with the proliferation of wireless signals bouncing around and through our bodies.
I do think this needs a lot of research to be undertaken, funded by someone other than the wireless industry.
I'm not sure where I sit on the debate (though there does seem to be increasing evidence that mobile phones can cause tumors - http://www.encognitive.com/node/2859), but it does concern me that there seems to be a connection between funding of studies and their findings (i.e. studies funded by the wireless industry finds no health effects, studies funded elsewhere find there are health effects). NPR had an interesting story about this a couple of weeks ago, but I can't find it on their website, so can't provide a link (sorry!)
Given the seeming connection between study funding and study findings, it bothers me that this could become similar to the tobacco companies suppressing studies that linked smoking to lung cancer.
So who cares if you don't care because many others will.
I'm just stating an opinion in a message board like thousands of others before me, I'm not saying you have to agree.
But seriously I wouldn't hold my breath for this technology. All I see is what Steve Job's referred to with blu-ray is "a bag of hurt". Hope I'm wrong. I don't see apple plunging into this technology any more than they did with blu-ray. And Steve Job's is on board of blue-ray among all those major TV manufacturers.
not sure why you are having the stuttering problem on apple tv. My base station is 3 rooms away and no problems. I hear wireless telephones can create problems (I have none, so I'm not sure).
I see sony is on board with WirelessHD ... a competitor on same band width. Is this another VHS vs Beta
I'm not sure where I sit on the debate (though there does seem to be increasing evidence that mobile phones can cause tumors
Great, now the tinfoil hat I wear to block those nagging transmissions from space aliens can protect me from cancer too!
i.e , In a WirelessHD environment, or Media Player to TV, the 60Ghz Signal will be only shooting at the TV Direction, and therefore extremely limited signal is absorbed by human, hence it is actually saver then WiFi.
I am just wondering how "narrow" direction can it get and if this is possible.
P.S - WiGig is still not fast enough compare to WirelessHD 2.0 - which is 10 - 14Gbps.
The Physics of WiFi
.../snip...
Thank you, professor!
A little shorter would be even better!
LOL I skipped all of it down to the last sentence.
I actually wonder if Narrowly Directional Wireless Signal is possible? In theory it should save power, reduce interference, more consistent performance, and less harm to human.
i.e , In a WirelessHD environment, or Media Player to TV, the 60Ghz Signal will be only shooting at the TV Direction, and therefore extremely limited signal is absorbed by human, hence it is actually saver then WiFi.
I am just wondering how "narrow" direction can it get and if this is possible.
Directional will add costs, either with a mechanical pointing antenna that's prone to breaking, adding several automatically selectable antennas or adding a lot of complexity & cost by using phased arrays.
I actually wonder if Narrowly Directional Wireless Signal is possible? In theory it should save power, reduce interference, more consistent performance, and less harm to human.
i.e , In a WirelessHD environment, or Media Player to TV, the 60Ghz Signal will be only shooting at the TV Direction, and therefore extremely limited signal is absorbed by human, hence it is actually saver then WiFi.
I am just wondering how "narrow" direction can it get and if this is possible.
P.S - WiGig is still not fast enough compare to WirelessHD 2.0 - which is 10 - 14Gbps.
Adding a directional antenna will add support issues, since you'll have to aim it. Also, should you want to hide your gear inside a cabinet, you'll have to modify the cabinet in order to get a 60 GHz signal out of it. Should that cabinet be at the back of the room (with an IR remote extender or such), any time you stand up from the couch you'll likely block and scatter the 60 GHz signal as you are a big fleshy bag of water, and high frequency RF doesn't like water.
I just see using stuff at that high frequency outside of a couple feet of clear line-of-sight as being problematic, and causing a crap-ton of support calls.