On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:17:48 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<zn9jj.193$dx2.139@fe089.usenetserver.com>:

>At 15 Jan 2008 19:02:36 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Read _all_ the links I provided and/or do some homework. Bluetooth 3.0
>> and Wireless USB are capable of speeds of 480 Mbps in close proximity
>> and 100-110 Mbps at 10 meters
>
>Which begs the question "why do we need yet another close-proximity
>wireless standard?" (Of course the obvious answer is "oh yeah, this is Sony,
>who gave us the Memory Stick, despite the perfectly good CF and SD
>standards already available..."

I don't think that answer is either obvious or terribly valid:

* New technology is good no matter where it comes from and no matter
what the motive.

* Working within a standards process can be excruciatingly slow and
difficult, which is why we have so many de facto standards.

* Sony is anything but alone in pushing its own technology wrinkles.
All the "pre-N" Wi-Fi products are a notable case in point.

* There are nice features in TransferJet not in Bluetooth 3.0 and
Wireless USB; e.g., the very short range.

* Bluetooth 3.0 and Wireless USB both have some significant issues.

* There's nothing wrong with Memory Stick, which has clear advantages
over some other formats.

* The market will ultimately decide the winner(s).

* TransferJet might:

- go on to serve particular niche(s)
- be folded into Bluetooth 3.0 or Wireless USB
- simply disappear.

Only time will tell.

>> Sure, since the actual advantage, from the consumer standpoint at least,
>> is huge, since no special cable is needed.
>
>Right- just another wireless "standard" to make sure the rest of equipment
>already uses. Frankly I'd rather see all of my equipment adhere to the
>defcto mini-USB standard so I can leave a mini-USB cable hanging off of all
>my equipment. ...

I'd much rather have wireless.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>