At 15 Jan 2008 21:30:41 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> 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.

Agreed. However, it creates problems in limiting consumer options. For
example, when my first digital camera, a Nikon 775, threw a seven,
I automatically discounted ANY Sony from consideration as a replacement
because Sony's proprietary MS card format wouldn't work with my (at
the time) considerable investment in 128MB CF cards.

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

Agreed, but de facto standards are fine- they are, in a way, the "purest"
standard because they're adopted by the marketplace, rather han a
committee.

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


Yes, but that's not really a fair comparison, because all of those
routers WOULD be "N" if the N standard was complete. (This is a market
where a de facto standard would be very useful.)


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


Can you think of a useful application for it that would be harmed by a
longer range such as BT's?

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


Perhaps. So may TransferJet.

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


What advantages? Like SD, it's already had to be miniaturized to keep up
with smaller equipment. What advantage does any MS card have (to anyone
except Sony!) that the equivalent-sized SD version doesn't?

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


Absolutely. I would never suggest otherwise. Only that I won't be an
early adopter...


> * TransferJet might:
>
> - go on to serve particular niche(s)
> - be folded into Bluetooth 3.0 or Wireless USB
> - simply disappear.
>
> Only time will tell.


Agreed. However, if I were a betting man, I'd wager on "#3."
(Interestingly, "be widely adopted by a variety of manufacturers" wasn't
one of your possible future choices!)

> > 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.


As would I, provided it has a greater range than my mini-USB cable! I
doubt you'd enjoy those wireless podcast listening sessions nearly as much
if you had to lay your head on the transmitter... ;-)