This sounds great. Pair this with magnetic connectors and you can have devices without any physical ports. Some obvious advantages are easier waterproofing, reduced chances of mechanical damage to the ports, and better dust protection. Coupled with wireless power transfer, I can imagine all the ports being replaced with painted markings.
Looks like the video is shot with a low shutter angle, reducing the motion blur, and making the video look a little more judder-y. The video on-screen looks like it's more stop-motion than traditional CG, so the effective framerate is most likely lower than the 24fps the demo video is apparently shot at.
The video in the video looks like 5 FPS or something. That's hardly a good choice if you want to demonstrate smooth playback.
On the other hand, it is the only choice if you want to hide the fact that your product is performing poorly. 8 gbit outta be enough for 1080p30, so why not pick a video that showcases it running smoothly?
This is actually quite revolutionary. Imagine a phone with no port. Charging through wireless charger and a special wireless hub for USB connection. Of course, the phone will likely still have audio jack... and it may not be the best idea, but its now possible.
In order to drive headphones, the signal level needs to be fairly high. The headphone jack doesn't transfer information, but modulated power. Using this for headphones would require the headphones to come with a power source and built in amplifier.
I would not be surprised if vendors go this way. They'd love nothing more than having to cram amplifiers into each set of headphones, as that would justify a higher profit margin.
Why an audio jack? Believe you will see a MILLION reasons why this is the most important jack in the world, and why taking it away threatens our freedoms, when Apple introduces the iPhone 7 without it...
Seriously, having an audio jack is like having a parallel port. The best use for an audio jack in this decade was the PRESSY button, which was a hardware failure because it was made like crap, but gave an otherwise useful job to a useless port.
Bluetooth with aptX renders a 3.5mm jack completely stupid on a phone. The crevice is a cesspool of dirt, accounts for the most likely location of water damage (which is why they put the moisture sensor in there) and it makes phones larger and thicker than they could otherwise be...not that I care about razor thin phones but it'd be nice if they were thinner at the ends.
The obvious application is a phone with 0 connectors and included bluetooth headset. It would be trivial to make it waterproof, the only complication being being the SIM card slot and the power/volume buttons.
I'm a little concerned with that strong of a wi-fi signal being blasted into my brain. I would hope there would be some good tests of the effects of such a strong signal that close to the body before people start putting a phone up to their ear for hours a day.
Huh, what are you talking about? 1- The signal wouldn't be near your brain at all. It would be at the end of the cord on your headphones. 2- The signal only goes a few CM before it drops off, which probably means it's extremely high frequency, (~60+GHz) 3- Something that high of frequency would barely pass through your skin anyways, and definitely not through your skull. 4- It's not WiFi, and it's not a strong signal.
How do people read that areticle and then completely miss all of this..?
Wireless USB sounds very insecure. Anyone can come close to your pocket and compromise your device. This tech will need explicit permissions from the users to be safe, much like bluetooth pairing, so even if wireless it won't be completely hassle-free.
There are lot of scenarios where even such proximity will not be alarming or even noticed. Obviously, if you aim to jack someone's device, you will pick one of those scenarios rather than doing it in a conspicuous manner. And with high bandwidth, the proximity only needs to be momentary, at 6 gbit you can do a lot in just a moment.
Where would you put your SD card? For sure many don't have slots for those and there is always external/internet based storage but would require an amount of infrastructure or additional hardware to support. It will come down to cost and packaging, no point implementing it if you need more case room to support it and it costs more than what exists already.
i dont see how this is a technology.. its more of a realization of the laws of physics and radio transmission.
Hell someone could make a wireless (insert anything here) that works on the 10 mhz band, and the distance it could reach would be hundreds of miles. or a something like this that uses 60GHZ and only a short distance. its not really a breakthrough, we've known about RF physics for decades.
this is just radio frequency and the laws of nature, and a realization of the extremes of both ends. Anyone can do this, this company just made a prototype.
...and so is all the inventions and products we have today, good thing though this is not the size of a bedroom. You probably missed this part, "Unlike 802.11ad WiFi, the connector and chip needed to enable this technology is almost absurdly tiny, as the chip is no more than a few millimeters squared. "
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
28 Comments
Back to Article
ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
This sounds great. Pair this with magnetic connectors and you can have devices without any physical ports. Some obvious advantages are easier waterproofing, reduced chances of mechanical damage to the ports, and better dust protection. Coupled with wireless power transfer, I can imagine all the ports being replaced with painted markings.ddriver - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Wonder why they chose such low framerate video for the demo...JoshHo - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
The Nikon D7000 camera is limited to 1080p24 video recording unfortunately.ddriver - Friday, January 8, 2016 - link
The video played in the video is much lower than 24 fps, I mean the CG animation, not the live action video.Derjis - Friday, January 8, 2016 - link
Looks like the video is shot with a low shutter angle, reducing the motion blur, and making the video look a little more judder-y. The video on-screen looks like it's more stop-motion than traditional CG, so the effective framerate is most likely lower than the 24fps the demo video is apparently shot at.ddriver - Friday, January 8, 2016 - link
The video in the video looks like 5 FPS or something. That's hardly a good choice if you want to demonstrate smooth playback.On the other hand, it is the only choice if you want to hide the fact that your product is performing poorly. 8 gbit outta be enough for 1080p30, so why not pick a video that showcases it running smoothly?
asdacap - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
This is actually quite revolutionary. Imagine a phone with no port. Charging through wireless charger and a special wireless hub for USB connection. Of course, the phone will likely still have audio jack... and it may not be the best idea, but its now possible.someotheruser - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Why even a Audio Jack? (backwards compatibility - meh!) - with this amount of bandwidth all ports can be replaced.....Armisael - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
I'd want a really firm connection on my audio-out port, given that my phone'll be in my pocket while I'm walking/riding a bike/running/etc.ddriver - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
In order to drive headphones, the signal level needs to be fairly high. The headphone jack doesn't transfer information, but modulated power. Using this for headphones would require the headphones to come with a power source and built in amplifier.I would not be surprised if vendors go this way. They'd love nothing more than having to cram amplifiers into each set of headphones, as that would justify a higher profit margin.
name99 - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Why an audio jack? Believe you will see a MILLION reasons why this is the most important jack in the world, and why taking it away threatens our freedoms, when Apple introduces the iPhone 7 without it...Samus - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Seriously, having an audio jack is like having a parallel port. The best use for an audio jack in this decade was the PRESSY button, which was a hardware failure because it was made like crap, but gave an otherwise useful job to a useless port.Bluetooth with aptX renders a 3.5mm jack completely stupid on a phone. The crevice is a cesspool of dirt, accounts for the most likely location of water damage (which is why they put the moisture sensor in there) and it makes phones larger and thicker than they could otherwise be...not that I care about razor thin phones but it'd be nice if they were thinner at the ends.
ddriver - Friday, January 8, 2016 - link
You can't wirelessly transmit signal, powerful enough to drive headphones silly.Liquid5n0w - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
The obvious application is a phone with 0 connectors and included bluetooth headset. It would be trivial to make it waterproof, the only complication being being the SIM card slot and the power/volume buttons.olafgarten - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Just have a universal sim card that can be activated on different networks that is sealed inside the phone.jardows2 - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
I'm a little concerned with that strong of a wi-fi signal being blasted into my brain. I would hope there would be some good tests of the effects of such a strong signal that close to the body before people start putting a phone up to their ear for hours a day.extide - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Huh, what are you talking about?1- The signal wouldn't be near your brain at all. It would be at the end of the cord on your headphones.
2- The signal only goes a few CM before it drops off, which probably means it's extremely high frequency, (~60+GHz)
3- Something that high of frequency would barely pass through your skin anyways, and definitely not through your skull.
4- It's not WiFi, and it's not a strong signal.
How do people read that areticle and then completely miss all of this..?
mkozakewich - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
They've already got virtual SIMs.ddriver - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Wireless USB sounds very insecure. Anyone can come close to your pocket and compromise your device. This tech will need explicit permissions from the users to be safe, much like bluetooth pairing, so even if wireless it won't be completely hassle-free.JoshHo - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
The images shown were designed to give some sense of the distance that the signal can propagate before noise hides all signal.You would have to be almost touching the other person's pocket, which would be at least somewhat alarming.
ddriver - Friday, January 8, 2016 - link
There are lot of scenarios where even such proximity will not be alarming or even noticed. Obviously, if you aim to jack someone's device, you will pick one of those scenarios rather than doing it in a conspicuous manner. And with high bandwidth, the proximity only needs to be momentary, at 6 gbit you can do a lot in just a moment.lorribot - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Where would you put your SD card? For sure many don't have slots for those and there is always external/internet based storage but would require an amount of infrastructure or additional hardware to support. It will come down to cost and packaging, no point implementing it if you need more case room to support it and it costs more than what exists already.Murloc - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
sounds like a good solution to connect mobile devices to the TV without using the current hdmi over wifi stuff that just doesn't work.XZerg - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
what's the latency like?JoshHo - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Latency is comparable to wired systems.jasonelmore - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
i dont see how this is a technology.. its more of a realization of the laws of physics and radio transmission.Hell someone could make a wireless (insert anything here) that works on the 10 mhz band, and the distance it could reach would be hundreds of miles. or a something like this that uses 60GHZ and only a short distance. its not really a breakthrough, we've known about RF physics for decades.
this is just radio frequency and the laws of nature, and a realization of the extremes of both ends. Anyone can do this, this company just made a prototype.
maximumGPU - Friday, January 8, 2016 - link
Because you know of some technologies that aren't a realization of the laws of physics?zodiacfml - Friday, January 8, 2016 - link
...and so is all the inventions and products we have today, good thing though this is not the size of a bedroom. You probably missed this part, "Unlike 802.11ad WiFi, the connector and chip needed to enable this technology is almost absurdly tiny, as the chip is no more than a few millimeters squared. "