NEWS: Sony Develops New Close Proximity Wireless Transfer Technology "TransferJet"

"TransferJet is an extremely simple wireless technology which eliminates
the need for complex setup and operation. For example, just touching a
TV with a digital camera enables photos to be instantaneously displayed
on the TV screen. Alternatively, downloaded music content can be easily
enjoyed by touching a mobile phone to a portable audio player.
TransferJet can be used as a Universal Interface among a wide variety of
consumer electronics devices."

Central Frequency 4.48 GHz

Transmission Power -70dBm/MHz or less (average power)
Corresponds with low intensity radio wave regulations in Japan, and with
local regulations in respective overseas regions.

Transmission Rate 560Mbps (Max.) / effective 375Mbps
It is capable of selecting the appropriate transmission rate depending
on the wireless environment.

Communication Distance Within 3cm

MORE

Sony press release:
<http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200801/08-002E/index.html>

CES 2008 Video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJtGHWjYko>

Comments: <http://www.everythingusb.com/sony-transferjet-14050.html>
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080107-sonys-transferjet-to-take-on-bluetooth.html>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

At 15 Jan 2008 03:11:48 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> "TransferJet is an extremely simple wireless technology which eliminates
> the need for complex setup and operation...
> ...Communication Distance Within 3cm

Ahh, finally a wireless transfer method for those of us who though
bluetooth's range was just too vast to be useful! ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 15 Jan 2008 03:11:48 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>> "TransferJet is an extremely simple wireless technology which eliminates
>> the need for complex setup and operation...
>> ...Communication Distance Within 3cm
>
> Ahh, finally a wireless transfer method for those of us who though
> bluetooth's range was just too vast to be useful! ;-)
>
>
There is a similar "network" solution for the rats nest of cables in a
home theater setup ... 10 feet range, 30 MHz signal rate, 300 gHz
frequency range ... everything is in an IC ...
Regards

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:6xYij.1031$qh5.909@fe103.usenetserver.com...
> Ahh, finally a wireless transfer method for those of us who though
> bluetooth's range was just too vast to be useful! ;-)

:-)

Bluetooth is only 1Mbps, though -- not viable for video, whereas Sony's
375Mbps sounds like it would be.

Still... if you're within 3cm anyway, the advantage over just plugging in a
USB or FireWire cable seems to be small. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends
up being popular anyway, however...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:53:21 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<13oq092ps8io77b@corp.supernews.com>:

>"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
>news:6xYij.1031$qh5.909@fe103.usenetserver.com. ..
>> Ahh, finally a wireless transfer method for those of us who though
>> bluetooth's range was just too vast to be useful! ;-)
>
>:-)
>
>Bluetooth is only 1Mbps, though -- not viable for video, whereas Sony's
>375Mbps sounds like it would be.

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

>Still... if you're within 3cm anyway, the advantage over just plugging in a
>USB or FireWire cable seems to be small. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends
>up being popular anyway, however...

Sure, since the actual advantage, from the consumer standpoint at least,
is huge, since no special cable is needed.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:me0qo3d7gqupuv9iir9ql391i3ujrr063o@4ax.com...
> 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

When someone says "Bluetooth" in a conversation today, unless they
specifically mention Bluetooth 3.0 or some other variant, the most reasonable
assumption that they mean the original 1 or 3Mbps variant.

Hmm... how long until people start putting "Bluetooth 3.0" on packages hoping
that consumers will think it means 480Mbps when, in actuality, it's just using
the backwards-compatible 1Mbps standard? -- Just like people always figure
"USB 2.0" on a product means 480Mbps...

> Sure, since the actual advantage, from the consumer standpoint at least,
> is huge, since no special cable is needed.

A "special radio" is not that much better than a "special cable." It all
boils done to who manages to make things cheap enough and well-enough-known
that they go from being "special" to commodities.

It's actually kinda surprising that wireless USB hasn't caught on -- it's been
kicking around already for something like 5 years...

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..."


> 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. It's nice to have one cord connect and power my devices- my
PDA phone, BT headset, GPS, digicam, etc. Makes packing your power/data
cords easy when they're all the same! ;-)

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<13oq4mutj5as7b6@corp.supernews.com>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:me0qo3d7gqupuv9iir9ql391i3ujrr063o@4ax.com.. .
>> 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
>
>When someone says "Bluetooth" in a conversation today, unless they
>specifically mention Bluetooth 3.0 or some other variant, the most reasonable
>assumption that they mean the original 1 or 3Mbps variant.

Only when they don't bother to check all of the information provided.

>> Sure, since the actual advantage, from the consumer standpoint at least,
>> is huge, since no special cable is needed.
>
>A "special radio" is not that much better than a "special cable." ...

I strongly disagree. Wi-Fi is a clear case in point.

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

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:31:39 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<9v5qo3975grei76smd81jggc60lq7vga0a@4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
><13oq4mutj5as7b6@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:me0qo3d7gqupuv9iir9ql391i3ujrr063o@4ax.com. ..
>>> 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
>>
>>When someone says "Bluetooth" in a conversation today, unless they
>>specifically mention Bluetooth 3.0 or some other variant, the most reasonable
>>assumption that they mean the original 1 or 3Mbps variant.
>
>Only when they don't bother to check all of the information provided.
>
>>> Sure, since the actual advantage, from the consumer standpoint at least,
>>> is huge, since no special cable is needed.
>>
>>A "special radio" is not that much better than a "special cable." ...
>
>I strongly disagree. Wi-Fi is a clear case in point.

The original Bluetooth is another clear case in point.

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

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>

On 2008-01-15, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> 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 think there's still some question about whether the ultrawideband
radio standard that the new Bluetooth, wireless USB and Firewire standards
are based on is going to be legal everywhere on the planet. It was
contentious when the FCC approved its use under Part 15 since UWB depends
on spraying tiny amounts of RF across huge swaths of spectrum (3 to 10 GHz?).
It isn't limited to sharing spectrum with microwave ovens and amateur
radio operators, there's military and commercial licensed services in
that range.

Of course, being Sony, any excuse will do for the opportunity to invent
something proprietary. I'll bet Japan is one of the places that ends
up not allowing UWB.

>> 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. It's nice to have one cord connect and power my devices- my
> PDA phone, BT headset, GPS, digicam, etc. Makes packing your power/data
> cords easy when they're all the same! ;-)

Yes, I like that too since I can power and charge everything from one power
supply, the one in my laptop. It saves on the power plug adapters needed
when travelling overseas.

Dennis Ferguson

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:9v5qo3975grei76smd81jggc60lq7vga0a@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
> <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>A "special radio" is not that much better than a "special cable." ...
> I strongly disagree. Wi-Fi is a clear case in point.

If you need to go further than 6' or so, sure... but the Sony standard being
discussed is 3cm, so the point was that for such short-distance communication
the added advantage is not that much.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:sp8qo3holhbem3ih6k1gp60s5v97ph48k0@4ax.com...
> * New technology is good no matter where it comes from and no matter
> what the motive.

I can't believe you're serious about that.

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

Yes.

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

True, although I think that *most* pre-N manufacturers released their goods
just to gain market share but still fully intended to support the "real" N
standard (via a software upgrade) when it was fully ratified.

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

OK.

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

All protocols do; there's no reason to believe that TransferJet will have
greater or fewer warts than USB or Bluetooth.

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

I guess I don't know what I'm missing with SD cards and CF? I agree there's
nothing wrong with Memory Stick, but I've never been attracted to it either --
it always cost noticeably more for the same storage than with other formats.

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

Yep.

> I'd much rather have wireless.

For something that works over all of 3cm, you might as well just have a
standardized docking port. iPods, ironically enough, have become a de-facto
docking port connector standard!

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:15:40 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<13oqc4dcn1rt8fb@corp.supernews.com>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:9v5qo3975grei76smd81jggc60lq7vga0a@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
>> <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>A "special radio" is not that much better than a "special cable." ...
>> I strongly disagree. Wi-Fi is a clear case in point.
>
>If you need to go further than 6' or so, sure... but the Sony standard being
>discussed is 3cm, so the point was that for such short-distance communication
>the added advantage is not that much.

Again, I strongly disagree, pointing not only to Wi-Fi, but also to
Bluetooth. The advantage of not needing cables is huge. As I write
this, I'm listening to a podcast over Bluetooth. Earlier I was using
Bluetooth to connect through Wi-Fi to the Internet. Before that I was
using a Bluetooth headset with my cell phone. All without cables.
Wonderful! You can have the cables. I use them mostly for charging,
and for that my preference is mini-USB.

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

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:20:33 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<13oqcdi3404bk76@corp.supernews.com>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:sp8qo3holhbem3ih6k1gp60s5v97ph48k0@4ax.com.. .
>> * New technology is good no matter where it comes from and no matter
>> what the motive.
>
>I can't believe you're serious about that.

I am quite serious. All knowledge is good. Any knowledge can be
misused.

>> * Sony is anything but alone in pushing its own technology wrinkles.
>> All the "pre-N" Wi-Fi products are a notable case in point.
>
>True, although I think that *most* pre-N manufacturers released their goods
>just to gain market share but still fully intended to support the "real" N
>standard (via a software upgrade) when it was fully ratified.

Only if convenient. Not all pre-G gear got upgraded. The fact remains
that there is lots of deliberately non-standard "Wi-Fi" devices -- see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11_non-standard_equipment>.

>> * Bluetooth 3.0 and Wireless USB both have some significant issues.
>
>All protocols do; there's no reason to believe that TransferJet will have
>greater or fewer warts than USB or Bluetooth.

"A camel is a horse designed by committee." Many of the best standards
have been adopted from proprietary designs.

>> * There's nothing wrong with Memory Stick, which has clear advantages
>> over some other formats.
>
>I guess I don't know what I'm missing with SD cards and CF?

CF is big. SD has a form factor not suitable for some devices.

>I agree there's
>nothing wrong with Memory Stick, but I've never been attracted to it either --
>it always cost noticeably more for the same storage than with other formats.

The cost difference is now small.

>> I'd much rather have wireless.
>
>For something that works over all of 3cm, you might as well just have a
>standardized docking port. iPods, ironically enough, have become a de-facto
>docking port connector standard!

I don't want a docking port, or any sort of problematic physical
connection.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news1dqo3t5jm5864ov4g6ff0gv1ift4bjt81@4ax.com...
> I don't want a docking port, or any sort of problematic physical
> connection.

Unless Sony adds inductive charging to that standard, you'll still be stuck
with a power cord for recharging...

I appreciate the other points you've made.

---Joel

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:14:11 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<13oqfi57hqahl02@corp.supernews.com>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news1dqo3t5jm5864ov4g6ff0gv1ift4bjt81@4ax.com.. .
>> I don't want a docking port, or any sort of problematic physical
>> connection.
>
>Unless Sony adds inductive charging to that standard, you'll still be stuck
>with a power cord for recharging...

True, with mini USB being my preference.

>I appreciate the other points you've made.

Me too you.

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

Joel Koltner wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:6xYij.1031$qh5.909@fe103.usenetserver.com...
>> Ahh, finally a wireless transfer method for those of us who though
>> bluetooth's range was just too vast to be useful! ;-)
>
> :-)
>
> Bluetooth is only 1Mbps, though -- not viable for video, whereas Sony's
> 375Mbps sounds like it would be.
>
> Still... if you're within 3cm anyway, the advantage over just plugging in a
> USB or FireWire cable seems to be small. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends
> up being popular anyway, however...

Is it really only 3cm? That's not even enough for audio/video receivers,
DVD players, televisions, etc., unless it's hanging out on a dongle with
a wire, in which case you can just have it all wired. Remember when 1394
was going to be on every audio/video component? At some point the
electronics for a single viable wireless or wired interface will cost
less than putting a bunch of connectors on every device.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:53:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <478d54d8$0$84230$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Joel Koltner wrote:
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
>> news:6xYij.1031$qh5.909@fe103.usenetserver.com...
>>> Ahh, finally a wireless transfer method for those of us who though
>>> bluetooth's range was just too vast to be useful! ;-)
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Bluetooth is only 1Mbps, though -- not viable for video, whereas Sony's
>> 375Mbps sounds like it would be.
>>
>> Still... if you're within 3cm anyway, the advantage over just plugging in a
>> USB or FireWire cable seems to be small. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends
>> up being popular anyway, however...
>
>Is it really only 3cm?

Yes.

>That's not even enough for audio/video receivers,
>DVD players, televisions, etc.,

It's not for that purpose.

>unless it's hanging out on a dongle with
>a wire, in which case you can just have it all wired. Remember when 1394
>was going to be on every audio/video component? At some point the
>electronics for a single viable wireless or wired interface will cost
>less than putting a bunch of connectors on every device.

Learn to read, for deity's sake!

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

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... ;-)

>"TransferJet is an extremely simple wireless technology which eliminates
>the need for complex setup and operation.

However, you'll probably need a lawyer to get around the DRM.
This is Sony we're talking about.

>For example, just touching a
>TV with a digital camera enables photos to be instantaneously displayed
>on the TV screen.

Provided you have all the copyrights in electronic form for the
photos within 3 cm.

Oh, yes, if I get a digital camera near a TV, does that mean I want
*ALL* the photos displayed with my kids watching?

>Alternatively, downloaded music content can be easily
>enjoyed by touching a mobile phone to a portable audio player.

But the rootkit will arrange for you to pay for the music again.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:25:48 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<76fjj.35208$w4.5604@fe117.usenetserver.com>:

>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.

How does that limit consumer options? That's more flash card form
factors, not less. 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? Burger King doesn't sell Big Macs,
but that doesn't reduce options either.

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

>> * 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?

Sure -- it greatly reduces RF interference with other products.

>> * Bluetooth 3.0 and Wireless USB both have some significant issues.
>
>Perhaps. So may TransferJet.

True.

>> * 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?

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

>> * 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.

>> * 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!)

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.

>> > 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... ;-)

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

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> How does that limit consumer options? That's more flash card form
> factors, not less.

Isn't it obvious? It means that you need to buy Sony devices if you want to
use your memory stick anywhere else. Imagine that all of your electronic
gadgets were from different companies, each of which used their own
proprietary format for memory. Do you want to carry around 10 different
memory cards and 10 memory card readers?

Mobile storage is useless unless it's interopable, hence the desire to cause
vendor lock-in by limiting interopability.

~None

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:54:31 GMT, "none" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in
<HUojj.14237$Y63.4833@trnddc03>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> How does that limit consumer options? That's more flash card form
>> factors, not less.
>
>Isn't it obvious? It means that you need to buy Sony devices if you want to
>use your memory stick anywhere else.

[shrug] That used to be a significant factor, but memory is not dirt
cheap, and old memory can be sold in any event. The same issue exists
with batteries and accessories. I don't see that as limiting consumer
options, just a factor in the purchase decision.

>Imagine that all of your electronic
>gadgets were from different companies, each of which used their own
>proprietary format for memory. Do you want to carry around 10 different
>memory cards and 10 memory card readers?

Usually the memory card stays in the device, and I transfer data by
cable or wireless.

>Mobile storage is useless unless it's interopable, hence the desire to cause
>vendor lock-in by limiting interopability.

The mobile storage in my RAZR V3xx is anything but useless even if
it don't interoperate with anything. It happens that I do move it to my
digital camera from time to time, but that's just a bit of serendipity
and convenience, and I'd much rather interconnect those two devices with
something like TransferJet in any event.

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

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> [shrug] That used to be a significant factor, but memory is not dirt
> cheap, and old memory can be sold in any event. The same issue exists
> with batteries and accessories. I don't see that as limiting consumer
> options, just a factor in the purchase decision.
>

Sony and its practice of vendor lock-in are one of the main reasons that the
Blu-Ray HDDVD wars has not been settled. I think few argue that BluRay is a
better technology, but it may not be worth the cost. (Personally, I believe
the way things are going, Blu-Ray will be the ultimate winner and HDDVD will
go the way of Betamax).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.

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.

On 16 Jan 2008 16:37:53 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote in <5v6q71F1kemafU2@mid.individual.net>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> [shrug] That used to be a significant factor, but memory is not dirt

Oops! That should have been "NOW dirt cheap".

>> cheap, and old memory can be sold in any event. The same issue exists
>> with batteries and accessories. I don't see that as limiting consumer
>> options, just a factor in the purchase decision.
>
>Sony and its practice of vendor lock-in are one of the main reasons that the
>Blu-Ray HDDVD wars has not been settled.

I personally think the real issue is cost. Blu-Ray actually has wide
multi-vendor support.

>I think few argue that BluRay is a
>better technology, but it may not be worth the cost.

I think you're actually agreeing with me.

>(Personally, I believe
>the way things are going, Blu-Ray will be the ultimate winner and HDDVD will
>go the way of Betamax).

Or it may survive just like DVD-R and DVD+R.

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5v6q71F1kemafU2@mid.individual.net...
> I think few argue that BluRay is a
> better technology

Yes, although people will argue that the vast bulk of consumers, while readily
being able to perceive a big difference between HD DVD or Blu-Ray and
"regular" DVDs, won't perceive much difference between the two HD formats.

> but it may not be worth the cost. (Personally, I believe
> the way things are going, Blu-Ray will be the ultimate winner and HDDVD will
> go the way of Betamax).

I go back and forth over who I think is winning... I thought that HD DVD had a
much stronger holiday season, but it doesn't seem to have had that big of an
impact on people generally seeming to be more aware of Blu-Ray than HD DVD. I
can still see it going either way...

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:37:46 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<13osg7g93s3k68@corp.supernews.com>:

>I go back and forth over who I think is winning... I thought that HD DVD had a
>much stronger holiday season, but it doesn't seem to have had that big of an
>impact on people generally seeming to be more aware of Blu-Ray than HD DVD. I
>can still see it going either way...

I think the biggest difference in the market, other than price, is that
"Blu-Ray" is a cooler name that sounds more impressive than "HD DVD".
Ultimately the fatal flaw for HD DVD may prove to be stupid marketing,
an area in which Sony is masterful.

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

John Navas wrote:

>Ultimately the fatal flaw for HD DVD may prove to be stupid marketing,
>an area in which Sony is masterful.
>
>
>

Right. Worked so well for BetaMax.