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.
"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.
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.
Since WiFi now has range extenders, shouldn't we expect the same for WiGig? It would be the next logical step in promoting the technology. This would curtail the fear of lost signals and interruptions in a populated room, such as Starbucks®, don't you think?
I'd at least like to see if it would work, and foster the marketing for sales for WiGig products, with the promise of more information moving in less time.
And for home based systems, I have no problem with limiting myself to a single room, since I do live alone, and my office is my living room, or the other way around. Everything I need to communicate with is in one room.
What about laptop batteries? They don't last as long as advertised anyway. Most owners keep them plugged in all the time. iPads, and phones will always need a new battery, and consumers are already conditioned to accept that, but that shouldn't stop the advancements towards making better batteries.
That part of the industry has left the consumers in the dark long ago, and should get back to work on a better solution than what is presently available. It seems that now that we have NiHi batteries, they believe that they have attained, have reached the pinnacle, and that there is nowhere else higher to go.
Well, I hate to be the one to burst their bubble, but we are not there yet. And the advancement of a better battery is way behind in the big scheme of things.
Everybody is walking around with larger back packs, (no they didn't shed them after graduation), to carry spare batteries and chargers of every possible configuration so that their equipment won't die when they need it the most.
Returning to the WiGig issue; What about going back a few years, and adopt the antenna jump through a wall, or false ceiling? Or placing the range extender in the ceiling to propagate the signal to another room?
There are solutions to the short range issue, which provides a practical reason to continue with the development and sales of the WiGig systems. We can't rule out a major step forward in technology with a word or two about a limitation.
There will always be obstacles to developments, it's our responsibility to find answers to them, and endure to transcend forward with what we acquire through technological advancements.
I don't see a problem at all. I see the future of even higher speeds, with broader bandwidths, and longer ranges. With an open mind-set, technology can overcome imminent distance blindness.
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.
@MB I had a very similar experience a few months ago - my G wifi router died and I had to go back to my old non-wifi one and run a 10M cable to my wife's PC when she wanted to use it. Not good for wifely relations :-) So I bought a new N Wifi router, also with USB storage - I put a 16GB USB stick on it and backup my important stuff to it regularly. Not that physically secure - if my house burns down I will still lose the lot - but I am going to get a couple more 16G USBs and cycle them, keeping one or two in my shed. Great insurance. Not too expensive. And the N speeds are more than adequate for most stuff.
My router sits on a shelf high up in a wiring closet, requiring a ladder to reach it. So cycling USB sticks is impractical. I put a 4gig USB stick in one of the ports for now. It was the largest capacity I have. You see, I get all my UDB drives for free from companies with press kits. Don't get so many anymore. The first one was 16MB and I still use it. It's permanently attached to my wife's computer. 16GB USB drives cost about US $10.