Breaking News
News & Analysis

UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?

1/22/2013 05:45 PM EST
14 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 3 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
pkandel
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
pkandel   1/22/2013 10:05:00 PM
NO RATINGS
This article seems a bit confused. Miracast is basically a standardized version of AirPlay, built on WiFi Direct. It is used in Wii U, and is certainly here to stay. 60ghz technologies have been cooking for years, and are now reaching mass market. It has very high bandwidth but very short range--basically in-room. Like 2.4/5ghz, it is unlicensed. There are two questions here: how valuable are the high bandwidth, short range use cases for 60ghz; and whether anything other than WiGig will survive, given general industry support.

Bert22306
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
Bert22306   1/22/2013 10:56:12 PM
NO RATINGS
My first comment is, it would be nice to know more about how Miracast works. The one comment that we should wonder about congestion, when Miracast and WiFi are attempting to coexist, is very valid. Miracast is not WiFi, but if it uses the same frequency bands as WiFi for uncompressed video, one should ask. The second comment being, if you can get that streaming media content to your tablet or smartphone, why not think in terms of streaming it directly to the smart TV? Without this peer-peer link? Why assume you need a tablet, a Miracast or UltraGig reception box at the TV set, and the TV set, to do what a smart TV should be able to do all by itself? Who or what is keeping smart TVs from giving the user the same UI as any tablet or PC out there? Anyone?

Battar
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
Battar   1/23/2013 4:07:22 PM
NO RATINGS
Think of 60GHz as a replacement for an HDMI cable used to link a web-enabled device - or just a set-top-box - with a display device. (No reason why the display screen should have its own personal web-access)

docdivakar
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
docdivakar   1/23/2013 5:59:16 PM
NO RATINGS
@plk & @Bert22306: I agree with your points. I don't know why one needs a hand-held (to stream media) that is largely redundant, wasting materials and resources. On the other hand, if we are talking about a hand-held that can double as a remote and meeting the plethora of confusing standards (RF4CE, 6LoWPAN, etc.), there is a play for it. I am still holding out for a TV that can be gesture-controlled. MP Divakar

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
junko.yoshida   1/23/2013 6:20:33 PM
NO RATINGS
I think something got lost in translation in this debate. Yes, if you can stream all that Internet content directly to your smart TV, that's all the better and efficient. But the reality is that many consumers today already have a smartphone and/or a tablet. Sitting in a living room with your kids, chances are, some of them are surfing the Net on a tablet or smartphone already, while you are watching a big screen TV. Wouldn't it be nice, if a relevant (or irrelevant) content found on a smartphone can be beamed onto a big screen TV during a commercial break, and share the laugh? I am talking about the reality of multi-screen era in a living room. It's already here. If so, how best to connect those multiple screens?

Sparky_Watt
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
Sparky_Watt   1/23/2013 6:26:10 PM
NO RATINGS
Simple. Your Smart TV is across the room. Your tablet or Smart Phone is in your lap. Mirroring the video strikes me as an inefficient way to do this, but having a console app in your tablet routing whatever you want to your TV makes all kinds of sense.

docdivakar
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
docdivakar   1/23/2013 7:04:28 PM
NO RATINGS
Junko, it is NOT efficient to stream content from Internet to SmartTV! I can do that simply by transmitting the hyperlink (a couple of Kbytes at the most!) to the SmartTV from my tablet (if one doesn't want to use the TV remote to do that). I can do that today with my smart phone and WiFi. What makes sense is to stream stored content from a handheld. But any day that works better in a wired manner like plugging in a USB storage device to your TV! In the end, it is the consumer adoption that will prove or kill UltraGig. Time will tell. I just don't like too much Emag smog in my living room! MP Divakar

docdivakar
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
docdivakar   1/23/2013 7:09:05 PM
NO RATINGS
Correction: ...it is NOT efficient to stream content from Internet to SmartTV from the handheld!

tb1
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
tb1   1/23/2013 11:07:44 PM
NO RATINGS
What if you don't have a smart TV? I think you can get a Miracast to HDMI adapter, then you can control any television with your tablet. Instant Smart TV, with a touchscreen remote!

Robotics Developer
User Rank
Author
re: UltraGig: Proprietary blunder or 60GHz future?
Robotics Developer   1/25/2013 2:14:08 AM
NO RATINGS
I am all for increased bandwidth, lower frame rate loss, improved resolutions, etc.... but I am not finding either UltraGig or Miracast very exciting. Perhaps it is because I do not own a smart phone and have limited interest in watching TV? I see the 60Ghz frequency as being too short range for really being useful in the home (say floor to floor or end to end of the house). The cost adder for all the devices that the user would want to have supported also is a draw back, how many manufacturers would willingly add $10 or $15 to their product on a maybe future usefulness?

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed