Handhelds connect with USB On-the-Go [Archive]

Jason Dunn

10-09-2002, 08:22 PM

<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-960014.html">http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-960014.html</a> USB On-the-Go is making a go in the device to device interoperability realm, but I have to question how much traction there will be. Let's say you have your digital camera and your Pocket PC, and they use different memory standards. You want to get the images off the camera and onto the Pocket PC, but they can't talk to each other. With this technology, they could - but only if you had the cable handy. I don't know about you, but even when I'm packing multiple devices, I rarely bring any sort of cable with me. Bluetooth would seem to be a better solution here, but we're a long way from having Bluetooth in every camera and every PDA. "A new technology that allows handheld devices to share files directly, without the need for a PC, could be on store shelves by the end of the year. Several manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, are evaluating ways to use an offshoot of the Universal Serial Bus 2.0 specification called USB On-the-Go. Using it, a person could plug a handheld or digital camera straight into a printer to produce a photo. PDAs also could swap documents directly or back up data by connecting directly to a portable hard drive. The technology is also expected to be used in cell phones and MP3 players." The article raises some interesting questions, so give it a read and tell me how well you think this new technology will do, specifically as it relates to the Pocket PC.

Mike Temporale

10-09-2002, 09:52 PM

The last thing I need is to carry another cable around!

On an average day I carry a car charger for my cell phone, a data cable for my cell phone to connect to my laptop, a sync&charge cable for my iPaq, power cable for my laptop. If I decide to take my digital camera and/or Digital Video camera, I'm now adding more power cables, more sync/download cables... Lets not forget the cable to hook up to the TV and display all the pictures/videos.... :roll:

Bluetooth would be a much better solution here. That being said, the best solution almost never wins in technology. It's all about marketing. I have a bad feeling that I'll soon have one more cable to carry around. :(

grogma

10-09-2002, 10:27 PM

My initial reaction is "oh great :( " but if you think about it sideways it means a universal bus for PocketPC peripherals IF PocketPC manufacturers adopt it or (more likely) Microsoft mandates it. It certainly looks like bluetooth is NOT rapidly becomming de rigeur in the PPC worldwith only iHPaq supporting it natively (and based on personal experience with the bluetooth stack, not very well).
Of course if this doesn't happen (most likely) then what we'll get is yet another dead "standard".

PPCRules

10-09-2002, 10:35 PM

I assume (maybe wrongly) that this would also mean that the ActiveSync connection would support USB 2.0 speeds. This may be a far bigger draw than the device interconnection aspect.

Sven Johannsen

10-09-2002, 10:48 PM

Doesn't this amount to a 'Host' USB port for our PPCs as well as most everything else? Haven't we been bemoaning the fact that it doesn't have that, and so the possiblity of hooking up USB keyboards, mice, camera's, joysticks, network dongles, wireless dongles, etc., etc. didn't exist because of hardware limitations? With the hardware capability in place, it then becomes and issue of driver and software support, which becomes an incentive for those wanting to sell their USB peripheral hardware.

Probably could use one of these as your sync and charge cable, so no net increase in gizmos :)

normaldude

10-09-2002, 10:57 PM

I'm sick of cables. Even little DiskOnKey/SanDisk Cruzer USB drives are annoying. We need to push Bluetooth harder.

If I buy a digital camera, it better have Bluetooth. And the next PDA I buy better have integrated Bluetooth. Already, the only GSM phones that I'll consider are the Bluetooth ones.

Seriously. Cables suck.

Anthony Caruana

10-09-2002, 11:20 PM

The big problem with wireless at the moment is that it is just too hard. When I plug my sync&charge cable in it just works. I don't have to tell my PC or PDA to do anything. Although my experience with wireless tech and PDAs is still a little limited, it seems that getting wireless techs (IR, WiFi, Bluetooth) are, at best, a multistep process to get going or, worst, a real PITA.

I'll take cable and easy over wireless and difficult at the moment. When we get to wireless and easy I'll be happy.

normaldude

10-09-2002, 11:32 PM

I'll take cable and easy over wireless and difficult at the moment. When we get to wireless and easy I'll be happy.

On principle alone, I'd rather work with Bluetooth, put my dollars in that direction, and help that industry along. It's my way of "casting my vote" with the tech industry that that is the way I want to go.

Bluetooth = Good.
Cables = Bad.

normaldude

10-09-2002, 11:38 PM

When I plug my sync&charge cable in it just works. I don't have to tell my PC or PDA to do anything

btw, I don't have a problem with sync&charge cables because bluetooth doesn't "charge". So with a PDA, you'd need to carry one cable anyway (the charger or sync&charger cable). With your mobile phone, you'd need to bring a charging cable too.

Ideally, one day all devices will sync & communicate with Bluetooth, and they can all charge using one charging device (with a few plug adapters).

Wuss912

10-09-2002, 11:44 PM

Ideally, one day all devices will sync & communicate with Bluetooth, and they can all charge using one charging device (with a few plug adapters).
why have plug adapters at all then why not just have a charging Standard?

igreen

10-09-2002, 11:47 PM

Hopefully with Sony's help pushing the market digital cameras will all start to offer Bluetooth. Sony's new MicroDV minicams have built in Bluetooth and Canon has demo'd a snap-on BT module on one of its cameras.

normaldude

10-10-2002, 12:23 AM

why have plug adapters at all then why not just have a charging Standard?

You're right. That would be pretty sweet. Then everytime I traveled, I would only have to carry one cable. Maybe multi-headed like a hydra, so I could charge a couple devices simultaneously with one cable.

(beavis) Yeah, that would be cool. (/beavis)

jweitzman

10-10-2002, 12:34 AM

Not exactly responsive, but it should be noted that one of the big advantages of Firewire over USB is that it could always talk device-to-device. Its ability to support isosynchronous transfer is also a big advantage when dealing with timing-based media. Finally, Firewire is a powered port, so you can charge the device through the Firewire cable.

Anyone with an iPod will tell you how great it is to have one port and one cable that can sychronize, transfer, and charge the device. On the road, you still only need the Firewire cable plugged into a little block that plugs into a standard outlet.

I'd much rather see Firewire ports proliferate than yet-another version of USB!

Will T Smith

10-10-2002, 01:16 AM

Bluetooth "On the Go" is one category where Firewire will retain it's edge. This is a brand spankin new technology "more expensive" that doesn't supply nearly as much bandwidth as a firewire connection.

USB certainly does have a larger base. However, remember that USB "On the Go" is effectively a BRAND NEW spec. There are ZERO devices that support it. It's only potential benefit is that USB on the go can also be a USB Slave device.

Will T Smith

10-10-2002, 01:19 AM

st63z

10-10-2002, 02:06 AM

Can someone give a brief refresher on USB OTG specs? I do remember it's an "effectively peer-to-peer" extension of USB 2.0 that's only rated at Full Speed 12Mbps (i.e. old USB 1.1 speed). And that it uses that mini USB connector.

And WTS mentioned that it can do double duty as a regular USB slave to connect to a host PC (and someone else assumed this will eventually be used as the ActiveSync docking connection). But can it also function as a regular USB Host to which you can connect any standard USB slave devices (existing keyboards, mice, etc)??

If true, I think this would definitely be a good development (though I still don't understand why OTG didn't spec High Speed 480Mbps?). Take the Archos MiniHD for example, which I think is THE smallest 2.5" external HDD ever at 4.7" x 3" x 0.5" (in silver to match the iPAQ) -- even smaller than the Addonics Pocket ExDrive. It's got interchangeable USB2/1394/PC Card cables just like Addonics. Before, I would have to use the PC Card cable to connect it to the iPAQ with a single or dual PC Card sleeve, a very ungainly solution. With OTG, I could just use the smaller/thinner USB cable with a naked iPAQ (?).

P.S. I too would prefer 6-pin 1394 connection like the iPod, but realistically there's little chance of that on PPCs :( To start with though, we'd need to get all laptops to support 6-pin powered 1394 instead of 4-pin. Oh, and the smaler 1394b connector WTS mentioned sounds nice.

Mark Johnson

10-10-2002, 02:40 AM

Can someone give a brief refresher on USB OTG specs? I do remember it's an "effectively peer-to-peer" extension of USB 2.0 that's only rated at Full Speed 12Mbps (i.e. old USB 1.1 speed). And that it uses that mini USB connector.

http://www.usb.org/developers/onthego/
(General Info)
http://www.usb.org/press/
(Press Coverage)
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20020610S0075
(Article about chip vendors supporting it)
Here's a quote about the transfer speed issue from this eetimes article:

To increase data throughput, ARC has added a direct memory access (DMA) engine that can autonomously transfer data to and from the host. ARC said it can reach the fastest, 480-Mbit/second, data transfer rate for the on-the-go spec, and hopes to convince others that it won't necessarily draw excessive power.

So it looks like OTG can support the USB2.0 full 480mbps throughput.

In this thread a lot of folks are bringing up the bluetooth/wireless and I think that makes sense for most uses for most PocketPC's. On the other hand, when we are all using those 1GB and 2GB SD memory cards (sometime in 2003) we'll want to fill them faster than the 700kbps of bluetooth (or even the 11mbps of 802.11b or 54mbps of 802.11a) will allow.
[/i]

smoke

10-10-2002, 03:00 AM

USB On-the-Go is making a go in the device to device interoperability realm, but I have to question how much traction there will be. Let's say you have your digital camera and your Pocket PC, and they use different memory standards. You want to get the images off the camera and onto the Pocket PC, but they can't talk to each other. With this technology, they could - but only if you had the cable handy.

The above piqued my interest. It REALLY WOULD be great to be able to solve this problem with the help of a third party device or cable. It would be great if it worked with the majority of devices you ALREADY own.

A new standard that accomplishes this would be great but realize you'd have to get a brand new printer, PDA, cell phone, camcorder, digital camera, etc for this nirvana to come true. In addition, most of your devices would have to come from the same manufacturer or small group of manufacturers. I don't see this as a MUST-HAVE technology. I think by the time I replaced my perfectly good hardware with this technology we'd be looking at Bluetooth-to-Go, WiFi-to-Go or Place-buzzword-here-to-Go.

Let's get the innovators busy creating a cable or bridge that utilizes existing technology and allows me to connect my digital camera via its USB cable to this bridge to my PDA USB sync cable. I think that I could stay satisfied with the old USB 1.1 speed.

Smoke

EricMCarson

10-10-2002, 04:25 AM

USB To Go is hopefully DOA. The last thing we all need is more cables. Rather than investing in new cables, maybe companies could invest in Bluetooth 2.0 with higher bandwidth and instant connectivity (ActiveSync whenever in range, anyone?). I see much more momentum garnering in favor of Bluetooth b/c of the true mobility of it. USB To Go is simply mobile cables (yuck).

BoyWithPockets

10-10-2002, 05:10 AM

We don't need yet another standard. If you need fast speed, use Firewaire. Otherwise we should just stick with Bluetooth. I hate having to carry around wires, it makes so much more sense to use wireless technology whenever possible.

mscdex

10-10-2002, 05:50 AM

not everyone (at least i can't) can afford a pda with integrated bluetooth... so for a lot of us wires are the way to go in this case.

st63z

10-10-2002, 09:26 AM

Can someone give a brief refresher on USB OTG specs? I do remember it's an "effectively peer-to-peer" extension of USB 2.0 that's only rated at Full Speed 12Mbps (i.e. old USB 1.1 speed). And that it uses that mini USB connector.

http://www.usb.org/developers/onthego/
(General Info)
http://www.usb.org/press/
(Press Coverage)
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20020610S0075
(Article about chip vendors supporting it)
Here's a quote about the transfer speed issue from this eetimes article:

To increase data throughput, ARC has added a direct memory access (DMA) engine that can autonomously transfer data to and from the host. ARC said it can reach the fastest, 480-Mbit/second, data transfer rate for the on-the-go spec, and hopes to convince others that it won't necessarily draw excessive power.

So it looks like OTG can support the USB2.0 full 480mbps throughput.

In this thread a lot of folks are bringing up the bluetooth/wireless and I think that makes sense for most uses for most PocketPC's. On the other hand, when we are all using those 1GB and 2GB SD memory cards (sometime in 2003) we'll want to fill them faster than the 700kbps of bluetooth (or even the 11mbps of 802.11b or 54mbps of 802.11a) will allow.
[/i]

Great news, thanks for the info!

ECOslin

10-10-2002, 12:53 PM

I'd like to see a wireless transmission system for my PDA, Bluetooth or other, that I can walk up to any printer or computer, tell my PDA to share data or print and have that local device or system do it. Within like a 6 or 12 foot range.

All the device id's and SID codes handled without my seeing them.

The PDA having an on screen, connect button (file, edit, connect) and a graphical flowchart window representing the printer or system in range and what that system can do(file folder, sheet of paper with markings, presentation with hand and pointer).

Edward

SassKwatch

10-10-2002, 03:04 PM

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-960014.html
Let's say you have your digital camera and your Pocket PC, and they use different memory standards. You want to get the images off the camera and onto the Pocket PC, but they can't talk to each other.I faced exactly this scenario on vacay last month. Digicam uses SmartMedia and I wanted to get each day's pics on the iPAQ 38' for storage. I got it done with a Pretec SM>CF adapter in a CF sleeve and coping the pics to an SD card. And then replaced the Pretec adapter in the CF sleeve with a Microdrive and copied the pics from the SD to the Microdrive. Laborious, you bet.

So a cable like this with USB capabilities on each device would have dramtically reduced the labor in the above scenario. And I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Would I prefer a wireless solution? Heck yeah. Am I holding my breath waiting for it to happen? Not on your life. At the current snail's pace of Bluetooth adoption, it will be *AT LEAST* another 5 yr before it is a common feature on devices.