In battery powered applications, that require security, the TransferJet is a much more valid choice to transfer large amounts of data. As long as the two device can be situated within an inch of each other.
TransferJet is another perfect of how ignorant the Japanese are. The Japanese OEMs are wasting their already thinning finance and resources to build a standards which does not really benefit the real-world applications!
As Bert and many engineers have pointed out now and before, existing technologies like 802.11 offer extension which can cover the purpose. However, for the sake of being different and to leverage at what they are still strong at (i.e. DSLR, DSC, multi-function printer, etc.), the Japanese OEMs are ganging together to tempt the non-Japanese OEMs. I hope none of the Taiwanese/American/European are stupid enough to follow. Let the Japanese OEMs waste their money, if they so choose. The rest should just stand by and watch the Japanese OEMs deplete their hard-earned money in the bank!
Yeah, definitely not 4.48 MHz.
This broadband NFC is a useful concept these days. And it should be considerably easier to achieve than an equivalent channel capacity over, say, WiFi. For one thing, NFC devices don't have to share the frequency channel with multiple client devices at the same time!
Interesting graphic. In truth, though, WiFi includes the distances shown for PAN. I'm quite sure that my WiFi printer is not more than 1 meter away from my WiFi access point!
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.