To the consumer, it makes little difference which of the 60 GHz schemes "wins." To the consumer, this will in essence be a wireless HDMI link, of limited range and limited wall-penetrating acumen, but way more bandwidth than you could hope for in the 2.4 or 5 GHz bands. So it's all good stuff.
I see that it is called 802.11ad, and that products combining 802.11ad and 802.11n are already being demoed. This is good. It would allow standard house coverage of WiFi, plus this "wireless HDMI" link within a room, for example.
The interesting historical aspect of this is that the 60 GHz band started being considered when it became obvious that the ultrawideband (UWB) radio hype wasn't panning out. Remember that hype a few years ago? It fills that same functional role, though. Short range, say 10 meters or so, very high bandiwdth wireless.
I think the future looks bleak for Silicon Image's UltraGig aka WirelessHD given the WiFi Alliance has embraced the WiGig Alliance's 60 GHz technology as its own and part of its road map.
So WiFi will have 60 GHz too and it will be an industry standard unlike UltraGig/Wireless HD which did not get backing from the folks it aimed to disrupt. The empire fought back--and won it seems.
Think of it this way, then. Instead of spending money on a Miracast to HDMI conversion box, and the Miracast transmitter at the tablet, make yourself a smart TV. Connect a PC to the TV, via HDMI, and control the PC with a wireless mouse (and wireless keyboard, when and if necessary).
Now you have a really smart TV that can stand on its own, and the tablet can be used for anything else.
This is reality too. It happens to be my reality. I went this route when I saw that the CE companies didn't know how to design a smart TV. So I gave up on them and did the obvious. Without waiting for Miracast or anything else.
Is is not simpler to have a low-bandwidth remote mouse next to you, to remotely control a smart TV, than to have to use a tablet that costs about as much as the set itself?
If you already have a tablet, great. Use it while watching TV, if you like, for something more useful than as a duplicate screen? It just seems silly to create such an expensive and bandwidth-hungry remote control for a TV, is all.
Perhaps the question proponents of this idea should ask, is the uncompressed video link electronics required at the TV and at the tablet going to cost LESS than a low cost thin client built into smart TVs? Maybe using Atom or ARM processors?
EVEN IF there will be times when you want to put those photos from your smart phone on the TV set, does that mean that all of your Internet TV watching must tie up a tablet too? I watch Internet TV all the time, on my TV, and have yet to need a tablet to do so.
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?
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!
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.
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?
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.