REGISTER | LOGIN
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Re: WiGIG
LarryM99   5/5/2014 1:41:07 PM
NO RATINGS
Actually, faster can be better even if it does cost a little more. Personally I have a few TB of video data at home. Even as that mores more to streaming from central servers the video density is increasing. Right now I habitually hook up an Ethernet cable to transfer large amounts of data to and from a laptop. If I could do that via short-range faster wireless I might be interested.

Arash_Izadi
User Rank
Author
Re: WiGIG
Arash_Izadi   5/5/2014 1:31:53 PM
NO RATINGS
One application could be to replace HDMI cable for TVs or Monitors. External hard drives could also benefit from this, since this would be faster than USB 3 (4.8 GHz) and it is wireless 

y_sasaki
User Rank
Author
WiGIG
y_sasaki   5/5/2014 12:53:08 PM
NO RATINGS
I don't see application for "short-range, ultra high-speed wireless technology". What is use for? Today we (at least I) don't keep tens of gigabytes of files on smartphone. Music, Picture, Movie and App... most of them are on cloud storage. When sharing information between smartphones, most people (at least around me) just put it on blog then forward URL. I see less frequently people shareing information by "old school" file transfer - crossover cable, peer-to-peer connection or USB/SD memory.

Faster is better, only if that comes in same cost and ease of use. 60GHz radio is limited for short range, it takes precious PCB and antenna footprint, draw more power from battery. Will consumer find out more value of 60GHz than its price? There's something I can't be convinced...

<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Most Recent Comments
nonickname_#3
 
SalemtheCat
 
HangLai
 
David Ashton
 
emesdoublee
 
emesdoublee
 
emesdoublee
 
David Ashton
 
emesdoublee
Like Us on Facebook