8 thoughts on “WirelessHD, Your Plasma's New Best Friend?”

  1. I installed a ceiling mounted HD projector at my parent’s place last year. Wireless HD would’ve made the process SO much easier.

    The question for the guys building this stuff is; will this not negate the need for the arguably overpriced (vs. PCs/Macs) set-top boxes in the living room? Why couldn’t I just stream everything from one PC or media server?

    Looking further ahead – couldn’t I just stream it straight from my Internet connection on the end of my wireless router? If my mobile phone can power a web browser, surely a huge visual device has the room for bundling in the relevant technology?

  2. Nothing mentioned in the interview about folks with existing HD sets, interface boxes of one sort or another.

    For this tech to become popular as quickly as possible, they should produce a box for the link-up that connects existing sources to existing sets.

    We’re already the early adopters. It doesn’t make much sense to spend your marketing energy and bucks trying to convince the most conservative portion of the chain – the folks with a content delivery system already in place that they need to changeover just to add another chipset.

    Enable the users – as part of the process. We’re the ones who want to get rid of the wires. You should be able to do this with something as small as the Audio Toslink switch I use in my system.

  3. As H.264/VC-1 capable decoder chip pricing drops, I’d just look to TVs that have onboard decoding for MPEG-2/4/VC-1 and an Ethernet port or .11n/MoCA/PLC/UWB/etc. interface. That way you only need a wireless medium that must support 20-25Mbps at the low BER needed for HDTV, not some fangled, unproven technology that needs to push data at such ridiculously high rates.

    The carriers are already delivering a compressed feed, why try to send it throughout your home in uncompressed format? To me, that’s an inelegant solution. Kludge.

    Granted, that implies middleware integration which is no small task either, but it’s a better looking panacea than pushing uncompressed HD feeds around my house.

  4. I’m with you Eideard. I think the problem is that SiBEAM only wants to make chipsets. It is up to companies like Belkin and Monster to decide to make cable replacements. System vendors like Sony and Toshiba prefer to bundle this stuff into their A/V gear in a proprietary fashion to encourage you to upgrade your whole setup — they’d rather sell a few $5,000+ whole systems than a lot of $100 cable replacements.

  5. Sign up to become John LeMoncheck’s early adopter (er, I mean, guinea pig) er, I mean, radiational experiment.

    Honestly, the larger question has to be: would you expose yourself and/or your loved ones (especially children) to this type of radiation?

    No thanks, we already have enough radiation floating around with mobile telephony, bluetooth, WiFi 802.x, etc.

  6. This is challenging technology to use effectively. Essentially at 60 GHz radio propogates much like light … so walls, doors and cabinetry will be opaque to this network … just like IR .. making the use of this technology MUCH more awkward than .11n.

  7. Ken your points are correct, but I think you misunderstand the application. This is not a competitor to WiFi or even something like wireless speakers. Instead this is an attempt to create an “invisible” cable. You will still have the same issue you have with any physical cable — can’t go through solid objects without drilling holes. The only advantage over a conventional cable is that it is invisible. In a world where people pay a premium for better looking/low profile home electronics, there would appear to be a market for “invisible” cables.

  8. How many retail iterations before it’s right?
    Will I be dead before it arrives at retail?
    Sibeam secrecy paranoids; I hope Omni looses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.