@Ted.Feldman, I'm glad that you decided to comment on this post. As background, I asked Eric for his commentary in order to stimulate discussion. If you would like to talk about making a post of your own, I will try to contact you off line.
I know they call it a blog, but how about some full disclosure here? The author is the CEO of Alereon, one of the last players left on that Gilligan's Island called UWB. What a coincidence that he chose UWB to be the winner for HD Video in the home? This is blatant corporate communications disguised as an article and designed to keep investors at bay so they can raise a D or E round before the wheels fall off. Do I need to list all of the other VC-backed companies that have gone bust chasing a dead product concept? How about close to $!B worth. And why is Point-to-Point video a dead dog? It's called MARKET RESEARCH. 90% of the time, the video cable is the shortest wire in the room. (And, for full disclosure, I am also a CEO in this industry).
We are talking about cable replacement in a consumer electronic space. Unless it cost is small to start with and can scale with the market until the cost is less than the cable it is replacing I don't understand the market case for this technology.
Just because we have the technology doesn't necessarily justify the R&D cost, yield and profit necessary to sustain the product.
A contrast is wireless internet. The computer, as a business expense, is quite limited without internet connectivity and mobility for laptops. WiFi provides internet connectivity at a commodity price with high yield products. Home HDMI cable replacement has very limited value in business other than providing wireless connectivity to projectors. Nearly everyone in a meeting needs/wants convenient internet connectivity, but only one person at a time needs to access the projector. So I don't think business is going to carry the brunt of the cost of cable replacement. So it would seem this market needs to be much more focused on ROI, high yield, cost reduction and volume than almost any other wireless technology (next to RFID).
Are we there yet? I don't think we are even in the ball park, but I've been wrong before ...
Hopefully others can enlighten me to the sensibility of this market.
I agree with your view on UWB radio technology being a suitable solution to the wireless multimedia in home environment. UWB products on the market deliver the required throughput with the best energy efficiency known. The latest generation provides even 300 Mbps net application layer throupghput (480Mbps gross) and the new one being already standardized delivers even more than 1 Gbps gross data rate. Have no information on what would be net in this case so far. The UWB radio technology form factor (USB dongle like) is really SMALL and the price is comparable to WiFi while delivering higher data rates with less energy within a normal living room distance. UWB does not need multiple antennas (no MiMo required even for ultra high data rates). UWB radio according to the WiMedia and ECMA 368 standard is capable of PROVIDING Quality of Service (QoS) due to a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) like radio resource allocation scheme, which supports reservation of time slots for certain dedicated streams and which supports a kind of "call admission control", which prohibits "overload". And last but not least a subset of UWB radio frequencies can be used WORLD WIDE like the well known older ISM band WiFi radio technology. So why not using it at least for the next 10 years for delivering multimedia contents over distances which are typical inside a living room?
Please review your facts.
Try to untangle the proprietary WirelessHD from 60GHz and its applications space.
Perhaps this will help you.
I have been watching WirelessHD solutions for a while and I have recorded 4 products that are available (or advertised).
I agree with the "big" size of the devices.
Prices are ranging from $299 to $999.
- RocketFish RF-WHD100 $599 MSRP ($299)
- RocketFish RF-WHD200 $299 MSRP
- Gefen GTV-WirelessHD $999 MSRP ($809)
- CablesToGo 29670 $499 MSRP ($349)
There are more WHDI products available on the market. They tend to be smaller in size and lower in cost (start at $200).
WirelessHD and WHDI products can be considered as HDMI cable replacement.
DLNA/H.264 solutions cannot be considered as HDMI cable replacement as it involves hardware and software requirements on both equipments to be connected. There is also a latency issue preventing game usage.
Great points about DLNA and H.264 encode/decode capability becoming ubiquitous, which greatly reduces required data rates for wireless HD video.
Your mention of UWB also reminded me that it was almost 6 years ago that I saw uncompressed wireless HD video at CES, streaming on UWB -- but no real products ever emerged.
I guess no matter how cheaply one can make those wireless transceivers, they still cost noticeably more than an HDMI cable.
Even trade journalists are expected to be able to write!
Though vs. Thou
O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.