At 16 Jan 2008 06:31:27 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >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.
>
> How does that limit consumer options? That's more flash card form
> factors, not less.

It limits options the same way a Mac user has limited software options and
has to shop off of the tiny Mac rack at the back of the store. As I'd
said, I'd already decided, due to my investment (at the time) in CF card
readers and cards to only buy a camera with CF support. That left Sony out
of contention.

When I buy a 60-watt light bulb, every manufacturer of light bulbs can try
and woo me, because they all have the same threaded ends that fit my
sockets at home. I don't need to woory if the Philips bulb fits my GE
socket. When manufacturers adopt different standards, be it VHS/Beta, Blu-
Ray HD-DVD, etc. it forces customers to select a technology and makes
switching harder. (Obviously today, flash cards and readers are
inexpensive enough to no longer be a real barrier, but that wasn't always
the case!)


> There were lots of other cameras that supported CF
> cards; you could have replaced with a used 775; or you could have sold
> your CF cards for good value and switched to a different format. Again,
> how does that limit your options?

Re-read.

> Burger King doesn't sell Big Macs,
> but that doesn't reduce options either.

Right- because McD's and BK are both using the same standard: food
ostensibly designed for human consumption. OTOH, no matter how enticing
that "gravy" that Chuck Wagon makes when you add water looks in the
commercial, it's not "compatible" with humans, so I can't choose it as a
meal. (Have I succeeded in making your thin analogy even weaker?) ;-)



> >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 many non-standard G variants on the market, and I suspect
> there will be non-standard N variants as well.


I've never a seen a non-standard B or G variant that wasn't at least
backwards-compatible with the actual standard, but may have also added
features (longer-range, or better security, for example) when used with
other "variant" models. So, unless TransferJet also supports BT 1.0 and 2.0,
that's a moot analogy as well.


> >Can you think of a useful application for it that would be harmed by a
> >longer range such as BT's?
>
> Sure -- it greatly reduces RF interference with other products.


Might that not have been accomplished by an actual useable range, like, oh,
6 inches, a foot, or call me crazy, a meter? Wireless that has shorter
range than a cable might as well be contact (i.e. a "cradle.") unless
they've acheived the holy grail of wireless battery recharging via
induction as well. But to use the camera-to-TV example, with a 3cm range,
I can't even pick the camera up to navigate through photos- this would have
to be a host-controlled process (i.e. the TV would control the camera so I
can navigate with the remote.)



> >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?
>
> Form factor. Long and skinny is perfect for some devices.

I don't recall MS (full sized) being that much skinnier than (full-sized) SD.
Besides- that's sort of a strawman argument, because very rarely, in
practice, was MemoryStick chosen by a manufacturer by practicality rather
than politics (like xD, another redundant "standard" format.)


> >> * The market will ultimately decide the winner(s).
> >
> >Absolutely. I would never suggest otherwise. Only that I won't be an
> >early adopter...
>
> I see no reason not to buy just because of TransferJet. It's not like
> Memory Stick. Don't want it; don't use it.


Obviously the addition of TJ on, say, a 60" HDTV will be a negligible cost
and not really affect a purchase decision, I'm thinking more fronm the
small-peripheral end, where adding a technology often raises cost, and
reduces the likelyhood that an actual usefulfunction will be included. A,
say, $15 manufacturing cost to add TJ to a small digicam might represent 10-
20% of the retail price, but more importantly, force them to leave out WiFi
for cost/size issues.


> My personal gut feel is that TransferJet may well prove to be
> complementary to other technologies. It's designed to do one thing very
> well, with no compromises, and that may be enough, particularly if it's
> as cheap as I think it will be.

Perhaps. I still think it's better suited to industry, particular
security. The short proximity allows the convenience of wireless with less
inherent security/eavedropping risk.


> True, but that's not what TransferJet is for.
>
> I love the idea of just touching my digital camera to my computer to
> instantly transfer all its pictures.

Cool in a 1950's Sci-Fi B-movie sort of way. Less cool when the transfer
is interuppted when, after "touching," you set the camera down FOUR cm from
the TJ sensor instead of 3! I like the idea of transferring the same info
WITHOUT touching my camera to my PC, but by just transferring wirelessly.
Hell, I use to have an old Casio QV series 0.3MP camera with IR-transfer.
I had 3cm range long before it was fashionable! ;-)

TransferJet sounds a lot more like a connector-less "dock" than what we'd
typically call wireless. You probably aren't going to "touch" the camera
to the TV or PC as much as you'll "set" it there until the transfer
completes.

> Likewise to my cell phone.
> Likewise to a photo printer. Likewise to a TV.


Except with BT, you could be anywhere in the room. With WiFi you could be
anywhere in the house. With TCP/IP you can be anywhere in the world... If
I'm choosing my camera based on what transfer capabilities it offers, the
3cm wireless one is last on the list.