Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54
  1. #16
    Joel Koltner
    Guest

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

    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]...
    > 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





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




  2. #17
    John Navas
    Guest

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

    On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:14:11 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news[email protected]...
    >> 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>



  3. #18
    SMS
    Guest

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

    Joel Koltner wrote:
    > "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> 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.



  4. #19
    John Navas
    Guest

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

    On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:53:06 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Joel Koltner wrote:
    >> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>> 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>



  5. #20
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

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

    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... ;-)





  6. #21
    John Navas
    Guest

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

    On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:25:48 -0700, Todd Allcock
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >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>



  7. #22
    none
    Guest

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

    "John Navas" <[email protected]> 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





  8. #23
    John Navas
    Guest

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

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

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> 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>



  9. #24
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

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

    In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> 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.




  10. #25
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

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

    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.






  11. #26
    John Navas
    Guest

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

    On 16 Jan 2008 16:37:53 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> 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>



  12. #27
    Joel Koltner
    Guest

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

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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...





  13. #28
    John Navas
    Guest

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

    On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:37:46 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >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>



  14. #29
    News
    Guest

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



    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.



  15. #30
    clifto
    Guest

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

    Joel Koltner wrote:
    > 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...


    http://consumerist.com/344116/buyers...y-future-discs

    "So here's how it's going to work: current players are Profile 1.0, and
    can play future hi-def discs but no bonus stuff. Profile 1.1 dics will
    include additional bonus material that won't play on 1.0 players?these
    discs will have a "Bonus View" sticker. Come October, Profile 2 capability
    will come to the market, which includes Internet activity, but only on
    Profile 2.0 players?these discs will have a "BD Live" sticker."

    --
    If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
    my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast