Log in

View Full Version : Sony Proposes "TransferJet"


Chris Gohlke
01-24-2008, 12:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080107-sonys-transferjet-to-take-on-bluetooth.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-bluetooth.html</a><br /><br /></div><em>&quot;Never one to settle for an open standard when the opportunity to push a proprietary alternative presents itself, Sony has announced that it will wade into the next-generation short-range interconnect wars with a proprietary new wireless spec called &quot;TransferJet.&quot; Sony's proposed TransferJet spec has a physical peak transmission rate of 560Mbps and would appear to compete directly with short- and medium-range ultrawideband-based offerings like wireless USB (W-USB) and the next generation of Bluetooth technology. But in spite of any similarities to either W-USB or Bluetooth 3.0, both of which are based on the same WiMedia radio technology and promise transfer speeds in the 480Mbps range, Sony's TransferJet has some distinguishing characteristics that set it apart from the pack.&quot;<br /><br /></em>Meh, Bluetooth and Wireless USB both already have brand recognition and are likely to be accepted by most manufacturers.&nbsp; I don't really see any advantage, but do see some disadvantages to Sony's offering, the biggest being the range.&nbsp; If the antenna have to essentially be touching, I think it kind of defeats the purpose of using wireless.&nbsp; Maybe I'm missing the obvious, if so, let me know.<br /><em><br /></em>

jeffd
01-24-2008, 12:22 PM
Actually im hoping bt dies out with the release wireless usb. Dont need more chips driving up the cost of devices.

Jason Dunn
01-24-2008, 04:49 PM
Actually im hoping bt dies out with the release wireless usb. Dont need more chips driving up the cost of devices.

Everything I'd read about wireless USB is focused around speed and range, not low power consumption...so unless I'm wrong (could be!) Wireless USB is not designed to compete with Bluetooth inside phones, headsets, etc.

Felix Torres
01-25-2008, 06:08 PM
Everything I'd read about wireless USB is focused around speed and range, not low power consumption...so unless I'm wrong (could be!) Wireless USB is not designed to compete with Bluetooth inside phones, headsets, etc.

But wouldn't that be more of an implementation issue?
If there is a need (and thus demand for) ultra-low power Wireless USB (even sacrificing range) it can be readily implemented in ultra-low-power silicon.
(Or as an ultra-low power mode with full-power transmission as an alternate option.)
As long as the data protocols are followed, the receiver won't know or care if the weak signal is coming from 3 inches, 3 ft, or 30 ft away.

Anyway, my first reaction to this Sony "innovation" was: "here they go again."
Memory stick, anybody?

My second was: "Don't those guys *ever* get out of their labs?":eek:

Jason Dunn
01-25-2008, 07:34 PM
But wouldn't that be more of an implementation issue? If there is a need (and thus demand for) ultra-low power Wireless USB (even sacrificing range) it can be readily implemented in ultra-low-power silicon.

I no engineer, but I suspect it's not quite that simple to develop a power-conscious chipset...I have ZERO love for Bluetooth though, so I'd love to be wrong and have BT be replaced with something easier to use, that's for sure!

Felix Torres
01-26-2008, 03:43 PM
Oh, I know its not trivial to do power-conscious electronics.
(At Intel, its a core competence--no pun intended.)
Or software, for that matter.
(Ask the Linux crowd.)
But, like I said, if the market *really* wants a low-power, short-range, wireless connectivity standard, it *will* get one. And, if I had to bet, I would bet on thhe one that scales *up* rather than the one that dies at 6 inches or 6 feet. (A cellphone/PDA/DAP that could talk to standard desktop printers or home stereo speakers is a great idea. An ever better idea is to have *one* wireless protocol do all that, not two or three.)

As for bluetooth, I'm not a fan either, but the market seems to tolerate it. I have it on three gadgets to date--use it on none.
Still waiting for an implementation that justifies it.
<SHRUG>