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...
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.
WiFi is not just for smartphones. WiFi replaces Ethernet in most homes these days, used by laptops and desktops. And WiFi is always short range anyway, so moving up to 60 GHz will not create a huge change in the WiFi coverage expectations.
I don't think WiFi would necessarily be expected to carry baseband video data, like HDMI does, however WiGig could even do that, if called upon. If monitor vendors start embedding WiFi in their products, without the whole IP stack, then one could contemplate transferring uncompressed video and audio, at layer 2, from STB to monitor. A layer 2 version of wireless HDMI. Could happen.
Well, Wifi can penetrate through a few walls and cover a normal sized house. But 60 GHz will not be receivable after even one wall, thus the applications would be limited to one room like replacing HDMI as you mentioned.
@MB - can you even see it working well in a starbucks? At 60 GHz even another customer moving between you and the Wireless Access Point could mess up your signal. Though I guess you could have multiple WAPs, as we do at the moment at my work, just closer together?
I think this is good idea of transferring large data through a wireless connection. 60 GHz sounds big and that is a great speed. The problem is that it will be at a close range and I don't think that it can be used in crowded star bucks. Another problem is the battery it will use to power it, take for example; using your Smartphone battery how long will it take? I don't think that that will be a good use for 60 GHz. And still think that WiFi is good for now.
"Right now I habitually hook up an Ethernet cable to transfer large amounts of data to and from a laptop."
When I have to do large data transfers such as backing up a hard drive, I usually let it run while I'm doing something else, am out of the house, or overnight. So, even if it tkes several hours, it's not as though I'm waiting aroundfor it to run.
Don't expect to just skip 802.11ac, and replace your 802.11n Wi-Fi network with WiGig. Because it operates in the 60GHz frequency range, WiGig has severe limitations in terms of range. A higher frequency means a shorter wavelength. A shorter wavelength equals higher attenuation, and shorter range. Your Wi-Fi network operating in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz range can extend for hundreds of feet—from your desk to the board room, or from one end of your house to the other. WiGig has a range of about 30 feet.
Replace your 802.11n network? I just replaced my g router with n last week, and only because the g router needed to be power cycled every week. I could have boght an ac router but what's the point? I have no ac devices.
The new router is nice because it has the ability to have guest networks and USB storage.