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>

---

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

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" <[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...

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:53:21 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"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.

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

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

>On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
><[email protected]> wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> 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
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
> <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> * 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"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
>> <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

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