Talk:Wireless USB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WUSB vs. Bluetooth? 2 WirelessUSB™ 3 Why USB? 4 WUSB2 5 Incomprehensive 6 How could people comercialize Wireless USB ? 7 What is the challenge/barrier to comercialize Wireless USB(WUSB)? 8 Can Wireless USB supply power over the air? 9 The other wireless USB

[edit] WUSB vs. Bluetooth?

Can anyone explain the core differences between wusb and bluetooth and should it be posted on the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.212.94.158 (talk • contribs).

The "core" difference is that they're two incredibly different protocols trying to accomplish two entirely different goals. Wireless USB is a high bandwidth wireless protocol with a smaller range than WiFi (and smaller bandwidth, and a much reduced power profile), but with higher transfer rates than Bluetooth (though both share a similar range and may be able to use the same PHY/Transceiver hardware much like combo Bluetooth+WiFi devices). (In theory anyway, you could build a single 2.4GHz radio device and have it work with all three protocols seamlessly with the decoding done in software, and it's likely we'll see this in practice in future devices).

Really, so you're 2.4Ghz radio device could work seamlessly with UWB using 3.1–10.6 GHz? Surely you'd at least need a radio device capable of working 2.4Ghz-10.6Ghz not a 2.4Ghz radio device? Nil Einne 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WirelessUSB™

It took me a while (nearly 2 days on and off!) to track down that Cypress's stuff is not the same as the "real" Wireless USB so I included some stuff. See also here RevRagnarok 03:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why USB?

Can anyone explain why "USB" is used in the name of this standard? Does it have anything to do with wired USB other than conceptually? Can wireless USB adapters be plugged into a USB port, say? --Jfruh 19:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wireless usb uses much of the same technologies in USB but wirelessly, such as speed modes. Wireless USB would have a similar method used in WiFi, that it will not have wires and detect hubs wirelessly. I'd say there will be USB to Wireless USB adapters, pcimcia and the like.--x1987x June 30, 2005 16:05 (UTC)

[edit] WUSB2

I can't find any additional information on WUSB2. Is this another spec? Does the rest of the article apply to WUSB2 as well as WUSB?

I haven't heard of it and don't see it on http://www.usb.org/developers/wusb/ either. Removing, for now. Text was:

WUSB2 offers 880 Mbit/s at eight meters and 220 Mbit/s at 20 meters. 

-- RevRagnarok 00:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incomprehensive

I was looking for information on USB, when I stumbled upon this article. While good for a first edit as can be seen by this talk page, this article needs some work, it is not comprehensive enough. Dessydes

[edit] How could people comercialize Wireless USB ?

Based on the benefits offered by this technology, how in your opinion can we commercialize this product?

Sorry but the talkpage is not the place to get people to do your homework for you Nil Einne 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the challenge/barrier to comercialize Wireless USB(WUSB)?

1.How can we overcome these challenges?

2.What can we do to avoid the barriers?

3.Can you list similar products now on the market?

See above Nil Einne 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can Wireless USB supply power over the air?

If it can not supply power to the devices , I can not see it going any further than Bluetooth or can it?

Wireless Power Transmission is snake oil (sounds like a great idea, but never really works), and the distance a signal can travel through the air is related to the power put behind the signal (amplitude of the output waveform; as long as the signal is distinguishable from surrounding noise radiation, the connection will work) so depending on what the spec says for its power output, it could fall well short of Bluetooth, or exceed it by quite a bit. I think in America, there are laws saying that devices can't output over a certain amount of power, though, and from the description of its datarate falloff, it probably uses around the same amount of power as Bluetooth (at the cost of a much more complex computer needed to drive it).

Put quite simply, Wireless USB is great for devices that need the bandwidth (Wireless disks), but not much else.70.35.227.160 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm always somewhat skeptical of wireless stuff and personally I still don't expect wireless to ever truly take over I think your missing the point. There are a lot of devices which can use the bandwidth and which people might be interested in making wireless. E.g. printers, scanners, DCs, MP3 players etc. All these will still need power of course. For stuff like printers and scanners, you'll always needs a power supply of course (ignoring crappy CIS and other such USB powered devices). But it'll be easier to not have the USB cable I guess. From the sound of it, it should make device to device connection easier to so you may be able to scan directly to your printer. Or alternatively, you could easily print from your laptop without a print server and/or running computer. Stuff like DCs and MP3 players will need batteries or to be recharged in some way of course but I guess it'll be easier if you can just bring your camera with you and straight away transfer stuff. Similar with MP3 players. People don't always want to recharge when they want to transfer and if your device (especially DC) uses seperate batteries it's irrelevant anyway. Also, this will make it easier to take your device to another comp. No need to remember to bring the cable. Of course, good devices either have standard ports (miniUSB or whatever) or even have a hidden plug but it'll still be easier with wireless. For stuff like mice, keyboards and game controllers I guess some might feel bluetooth is better. But again, it all depends on how ubiquitious WUSB and bluetooth become. One of the key reasons for the success of USB is because it's ubiquituous. A lot of the advantages above also need WUSB to become ubiquitious. If it does, I think it's safe to say it'll have a lot more uses then you might think, especially if bluetooth doesn't. Nil Einne 16:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The other wireless USB

I don't have an opinion on which is better (I don't understand why people feel so strongly about these things, and it is unlikely that I will use either one in the foreseeable future), but I think that the article should include both version of wireless USB, Cable-Free USB (supported by Freescale) and Certified Wireless USB (supported by Intel). The article currently only covers the latter. While Cable-Free USB is not approved by the USB Sig or the IEEE, it is still referred to as "wireless USB", which is why they added "certified" to the name of the other version. The article seems somewhat dismissive of Cable-Free USB and gives the impression that it is not real wireless USB. It also calls Certified USB's protocol "correct". From what I have read, Cable-Free USB is an extension to USB while Certified USB is a completely different protocol (not that that is bad). Also, Cable-Free USB is scheduled to ship this summer, while Certified USB's protocol is not finished and it missed its late 2005 deadline and is now forecasted to come out in late 2006 or perhaps in 2007. These things do not necessarily make Cable-Free a better choice, but it appears to be a serious competitor, despite its lack of certification. For these reasons, I think that the article should either cover both or be renamed to Certified Wireless USB. At first, Wireless USB would redirect to Certified Wireless USB, but once, or if, an article is written on Cable-Free, it would be a disambiguation page. I favor covering both in a single article. -- Kjkolb 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Certified wireless USB is supported by the USB Implementers Forum not just Intel. Also could you provide some info or a link to support your assertation that Certified Wireless USB is a completely different protocol? As far as I can tell from this talk page, the article and quick look at the UIF page, it is as extension. For example "Certified Wireless USB is the new wireless extension to USB that combines the speed and security of wired technology with the ease-of-use of wireless technology". They also talk of backwards compatability etc. Perhaps this is just marketing speak but I get the impression that the UIF is branding it as an extension.

Also, could you provide examples were Cable-Free USB is called wireless USB? As far as I can tell, the primary reasons certified is called certified is because of WirelessUSB(tm). In any case, I think we need to make clear that this is an article about Wireless USB not wireless USB. IMHO, it's fine to mention other techs but Cable-Free USB should go in to a seperate article. As for WirelessUSB (tm), IMHO that should similar be in a seperate article. Of course, 1-2 years from now things might be different but IMHO at the moment, we should keep this article about Certified Wireless USB Nil Einne 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I got here from reading information elsewhere that raises doubt that "Certified Wireless USB" is even entitled to be regarded as an "official" or IEEE certified protocol. Article http://www.techworld.com/mobility/features/index.cfm?featureid=2190 appears to say there is no IEEE standard, and also no "Certified Wireless USB" products (back in Jan 2006) - although it does seem that the "Certified" protocol is more sophisticated than the products which merely piggy-back radio onto the existing USB protocol so that boxes with actual or virtual USB interface do not need to be connected together.

I agree that "USB" as currently understood is ultimately meaningless when applied to this stuff - I think it's used because users think they know what it means, and in the same spirit as Microsoft's "Windows CE", which led you to believe that a pocket computer could run ordinary Windows applications, which in fact is only possible now in 2006 with UMPC and only if you wear the WinSuit(TM) dungarees with the tummy-pouch.  ;-) On sale now are kits to wirelessize your USB hardware.

We have had this with "USB High Speed" and "USB Full Speed" and all, which would you prefer to buy, and as far as I know that was inside -one- set of standards! No one did a "USB Well It's Cheap Anyhow".

I like standards, but I propose that your Wikipedia editorial neutrality should step back from advocacy and enthusiasm for the "Certified" wireless USB or even for the entire category of UWB peripherals. The benefit over Bluetooth, for instance, remains unclear, unless you're in the UWB business and therefore not in the Bluetooth business, so it matters to -you-. Conversely, wireless access cries out for shared peering of devices - or whatever it would be called - a wireless printer should be accessible directly to any authorised device in the room or the building or the town, depending on range, with as much or as little management as is wished. I'm getting into advocacy myself here, but a view can be taken that one technological delivery is more or less useful than another.

A balanced article should represent all alternatives equally according to their respective merits.

And Wikipedia should not carry unqualified statements that products "will" be released by a given date. In the general case, it's quite likely that they won't, and Wikipedia loses authority. The claim should be attributed and qualified. "Technology kibitzer Robert Carnegie has said 'this could be in stores mid-2007 if people, they know who they are, get off their hindparts, but don't hold your breath.'"

Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com 194.83.173.134 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"I think we need to make clear that this is an article about Wireless USB not wireless USB."

I certainly agree that an article should be clear on what it is about.

However, I think NPOV requires a "wireless USB" article to discuss all kinds of technologies that are typically called "wireless USB", especially if there is a conflict between one group of people saying "this is wireless USB", and another group saying "No it isn't. This other stuff is the *real* wireless USB". Confused people, such as myself, are going to come to Wikipedia trying to understand this stuff. We can't expect them to already know the difference between "wireless USB" and Capital-W "Wireless USB".

(If the article gets really long, then I don't mind splitting it up into seperate articles on each type. But each article must mention all the other types, and what the difference is.)

--68.0.120.35 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It'd be fine with me either way, I added the whole (TM) stuff due to a personal discovery as I noted. It really peeved me that I attended a seminar claiming to be USB when it had nothing to with the Implementer's Forum. I do have a problem with a company taking a standard name and then "tweaking" it into a proprietary system (see RAMBUS). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)