Slashdot Mirror
New Sharp AQUOS Cordless LCD TVs
i4u writes "I4U reports about Sharp introducing AQUOS a new line of cordless LCD TV Sets.
Sony introduced beginning of April the cordless Sony Vega TV series.
Now Sharp introduces their line of cordless TV Sets. The Sharp AQUOS LC-15L1 is a 15" LCD TV set that has no wires. The display is powered by a built-in lithium battery. The AV signal is transmitted wirelessly from the base station that contains the tuner. The AV signal is transmitted over 2.4Ghz. The cordless Sony Vega TV series use 5GHz to avoid interference, so Sharp is a bit behind here.
The AQUOS LC-15L1 will retail for about 175,000 yen starting May 1st in Japan." These look pretty cool, but of course the battery life and/or battery pricing could be an issue. I guess it depends on how important it is to be able to carry your TV from room to room.
Can anyone explain to me why 2.4GHz is so popular? Phones use it, 802.11b uses it, and many devices, such as microwaves interfere with it. Do people not realize that the more devices that use it, the less useful/reliable it will be? Is there something special about it that's attractive to developers? Is it because it's a non-regulated frequency? IS it even a non-regulated frequency?
I'm all for wireless this and wireless that, but am i the only one who sees absolutely no point to this? I cant imagine the batteries lasting for very long also what about all the cables besides power you plug into your tv, youd have to set those up wirelesly too. DVD, reciever, even just the cable. I i just cant see much of a market for large batery operated tvs.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
175,000 yen is about $1,460 US. For that price you could go pick up a laptop with a 15" screen and a USB TV Tuner and you'd probably still have money to spare.
Seems to me that this is the kind of technology that we'll see in the lavish mansions of movie stars and not in the homes of everyday people. (damn it!)
Using the LCD on a camera cuts the battery life by more than half and that is a tiny LCD. I can't imagine what a big LCD screen would do. Though it would be cool just walking around with a high quality TV in your hands. At least it beats those old portable 3" b/w CRT tvs.
Checking out my form of escapism.
a really expensive tv that needs batteries and is easy to walk off with! i've been waiting for this for a long time now.
why wouldn't any /.er want portable pr0n?!! put the base station elsewhere, watch in the cool confines of anywhere!
Ahhh, Slashdot, always pioneering new technology. Slashdot has introduced the just announced, new, previously unknown DupeInStoryText technology! It has duplicates in the story text. You'll note each story text will now contain text similar to the text that preceeded it. If you get a sense of deja-vu, it's because repetitive text is, indeed, in many stories.
Please help metamoderate.
I'm sure we'd all like to hear what the fuck went wrong with slashdot the past several hours and how Taco and crew fixed it.
Don't mod this as off-topic - its a hell of a lot more interesting than the actual topic.
so when I am running outta that store that we just looted, I could also be watching the cops chasing me on live TV.
Now, I'm as much a tech geek like the next slashdotter, but I don't understand why being able to schlepp your TV around would be such a big deal. When's the last time any of you felt the need to move your 21 incher to the bathroom... mmmh, maybe while I take a bath - at least I wouldn't get electrocuted again that way - LOL.
Anyway, I'm much more looking forward to that 802.11b equipped DivX/DVD player - now THAT's something useful. Anhone any clue when that thing is making it into the U.S.?
- it will be very handy to just grab the telly, turn it off and place it behind the door..
Not Vega, Wega. I know a lot of people screw that up, but I how can you trust a review site that doesn't even get the name of the product right?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
...is to eventually reduce the cables and setup required. We will soon have buttonless TV's and displays, that auto-configure, and except for a few controls on a remote or keyboard, they will not need any interaction to operate properly.
This brings us full circle, back to when the first displays had nothing but an on switch.
TV...over the air...no wires! Who would have thought it was possible? This will change everything!
Cordless ?, so how/where do I plug it in to the mains ?.
I remember back in the day I with the likes of Sony or Casio, they all had handheld (and bigger if you wanted) portable tv's, we could take pretty much anywhere in the country and always get a decent amount of channels. So maybe there's a new market for this stuff? I better throw mines on ebay quick, make some good $$$.
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
I don't know, oh wise lexicographical expert. I how can you trust it?
I what does I how mean anyway? I?
"Wega" is a German form of "Vega". Originally, the name represented a silhouette "V", until too many people, like yourself, mistook it for a "W". So the name was kinda *changed* to "Wega" from "Vega", which still fit, due to its Latin origin.
I don't know if there is anybody living in the UK reading this, but I believe there to be a quirk in television license rules. Specifically, devices that are not powered by mains (e.g. by battery, even if they are charged from mains -- so long as you don't watch and charge at the same time, I guess) are exempt from the requirement of a television license.
;)
A device like this could save some people quite a bit of cash, I should imagine
Why are these companies even bothering with 802.11a/b?
e f.pdf.
There is a much better technology just around the corner in the form of UWB. There is a company by the name of "Xtreme Spectrum" that has already designed a chipset specifically for conveying A/V signals using UWB. As I understand it, these signals are not prone to degradation by multipath interference. However, penetration of UWB signals through walls will be limited due to FCC restrictions on allowable power limits of UWB signals. Here is a link on the Trinity chipset:
http://www.xtremespectrum.com/PDF/xsi_trinity_bri
Also, to address the issue of using 802.11a/b, it's really easy to do it yourself if you have a PC equipped with TV capture card (e.g. ATI TV wonder or ATI all-in-wonder, etc) and using Windows Media Encoder (as an example) to encode a TV channel and broadcast it to your laptop/s.
I do this and it works really well, I put the laptop in "full screen mode" while watching a TV channel and get pretty respectable performance on old hardware (266 Mhz P2 laptop, 850 Mhz P3 encoder). I use WM9 (even though Microsoft "recommends" a P4 with 1.5 Ghz) for medium data rate encoding of video. I realize it uses Microsoft products, but this is just one solution to using 802.11a/b for wireless media.
So, I end up with an instant 15" inch TV in front of me. It feels even bigger because the TV is so close (as opposed to a 27" TV far away). This solution works for me whenever the wife and I have two different ideas of what to watch on TV. Yeah, I know it's a expensive way to go about it solely as a TV solution but the PC hardware/infrastructure was already there, it's just another way to use it.
Well, that's just my 2 cents...
Death by a thousand zaps. I think I'll stick my head in the microwave. It will be quicker.
You're assuming that just because something operates at 2.4GHz, it must be 802.11b, and you're quite wrong.
The FCC regulates who can use what bits of the radio spectrum. Most pieces are allocated for things like radio broadcast, millitary use, amateur radio, GPS, etc.. There are a couple chunks, known as "part 15" bands, which are outlined in the rules for anyone to use, with a minimum of restrictions.
There's a band in the 900MHz range, and a band in 2.4GHz, and they're both called ISM, which stands for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical. I don't know why the words Consumer Putz didn't make it in there, because that's mostly what transmits there.
Cordless phones, wireless computer networking, certain video cameras, baby monitors, wireless microphones, you name it, all sorts of devices have been designed to operate in the 2.4GHz ISM band. It's handy! These new TVs work just like the X10 wireless video cameras, they use part of the spectrum to send video. They'll probably stomp all over an 802.11b LAN if you have one set up.
The world does not run on packets. There are things on the air, and things on wires, which are not Ethernet. This is my new mantra.
so, this TV works by decoding radio waves sent from a base station, which works by decoding waves sent from the TV station. and to change the channel you have to walk back to the room with the base station?
my brother had something like this about 15 years ago, but he could change the channel right on the TV itself...
What exactly is the point of this??
-duncan
I'm not up on the latest on fuel cell technology, but what's the potential for using fuel cells to power stuff like plasma displays?
Or, as a variation of the "I'm getting fried by all this wireless" theme, how about any wireless means of recharging batteries? I mean, futurists like to talk about huge solar collectors out in space that would beam the electricity they generate to an earth-bound station that would pump it into the power grid -- is there any similar sort of technology that has promise on a scale like this without frying us from the inside out?
just curious....
apple hasn't done first
IMHO it is completely pointless unless your VCR and DVD player are wireless too....
Unless the cable company approves it. This would retransmit telecommunications service, and thus run afoul of Michigan's new law.
Actually it would be cool if your porn-loving neighbor got one of these, you could probably watch for free.
Can multiple monitors share the same base station?
If yes, can multiple monitors share the base station the signal but still show different channels?
If both answers are affirmative, I can see the use of this. You put the base station wherever you put all your A/V equipment, which can very well be in the basement, and then you put monitors wherever you want a TV.
Otherwise, it seems like useless novelty to me.
I mean, if you can't share base stations, I REALLY don't see the point of the wireless TV. It's not like the TV wiring is a problem in any modern house, and it's not like connecting the base station is that much less of a hassle than connecting the LCD screen in the first place.
And let's face it, how many of us really need to put their TV on the ceiling?
If you can share base stations but can only watch one channel/video at a time (I think this is the case) I can see some limited use outside of the consumer market: bars, crappy restaurants, airplanes, office-buildings... wherever you actually want to show the same video source on multiple screens in inconveniently located places.
But as a consumer, I would find it a pain. "It would be like a sportsbar", I can hear a certain TV-ad character say.
Really, we're not talking LAN cabling, which most modern houses don't have incorporated. We're talking TV antennas.
How far do you have to go in a modern house to get to a TV outlet?
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
According to this link in the article, the Sharp set is powered by an lithium ion battery. This link for the Sony set makes no mention of a battery, which leads me to believe that one would still need an outlet to power the display.
According to this page, Sony will be selling a black 17" widescreen wireless TV beginning May 10th for 210,000 yen ($1,752) and a silver 15" 4:3 aspect ratio model beginning June 1st for 165,000 yen ($1,377). But it does not appear that they are selling any wireless TVs yet (as the article leads one to believe).
And yes, there are some very good reasons to have a wireless television set. The only cable jack in my apartment is in the living room. My only television is a TV tuner in the computer in my bedroom (diagonally opposite end of the apartment from the living room). I had to go buy a 50ft coaxial and run it from one corner of my apartment to the other just to watch TV (not sure why I bothered, really). So yes, if I had a wireless television, I would no longer need to be careful not to trip over a 50ft coaxial when walking through my apartment. Also, a wireless TV set would allow folks to more easily watch TV from the backyard while having a barbecue, or perhaps from a patio while keeping an eye on the kids in the pool (because, if you can afford to spend more than $1,000 for a small TV set, you probably also have a pool).
If you speak Japanese! Do Japanese people even read /. ?
Good lord .. decades of technology improvements, billions of dollars spent, and we're getting excited about a cordless TV?
:-/
WTF is going on here? I had a cordless battery powered TV YEARS ago and it didn't even need a frickin' "base station".
Why can't technology be used to SIMPLIFY the products we buy?
Next on slashdot: A portable "music listening device" that streams pre-programmed 128k MP3s over the internet for $9.99/month, and uses an 802.11 connection. Also comes with a bluetooth remote control! You can set it the whole thing up in an afternoon (802.11 access point not included)! Just plug it into your PC with an ethernet cable, run our proprietary windows-only software to set your WEP keys, and enter your credit card to gain access to the streams. And you're done!!!
All for under $1000 ($999 after rebate).
And the battery in this portable listening station lasts for OVER 2 HOURS!! Note: do not move more than 50 feet from your access point. May not travel through thick walls.
Amazing what technology can bring us! A portable, wireless streaming music listening station for under $1000!
You kids today... *raises and shakes fist*
Why are these companies even bothering with 802.11a/b? Probably because 802.11a/b is here now, unlike UWB, meaning they can sell their products now. It'll also be cheaper than UWB for a while, at least until the second or third revision of this product, at which point they might very well switch to UWB or 802.11g or something else entirely.
Companies would rather take an existing technology that's more than good enough and sell something immediately than wait a few years for a similar technology that's barely out of the prototype stage at the moment.
I can see how it would be cool to have the display hang on the wall or sit in the middle of the room with no wires. OTOH, but it seems that the 2.4 GHZ spectrum is getting quite crowded. I suspect interference would be a problem, especially in densely populated areas. It seem to me that it would make much more sense to build such a unit with a single power/signal/sound cord. If there were no controls on the unit itself, i.e. the remote was the only controller, the form fact large maintained, without the ugly additional boxes.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
All the other wires are connected to a base station.
Its for wall mounting, not portability.
The only person I can see with any use for this is Rain Man.
I guess it depends on how important it is to be able to carry your TV from room to room.
Finaly a way to avoid breaking my contract to watch commercials when I go to the kitchen or bathroom!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I'm not as up on information theory as I could be, but basically, frequencies in the GHz range give you much more carrying capacity for information. This is important when you're trying to send, say, digital video at a decent rate.
I'm not sure if it was Sharp (I haven't read the article), but I *have* seen some TVs from Japan on eBay that use 802.11b to send your cable/DVD/etc feed wirelessly, a-la Videolan. By virtue of being 802.11, those devices would certainly 'play nice' with other 802.11 devices in the vicinity, though they might eat up a channel. The idea is to let you hang/place the TV where you want it, without having to run coax everywhere.
Anyone who's been in a house with badly-positioned wall plates can appreciate the concept... though I'll personally be holding off until there's a way to send the video losslessly.
Who spends that kind of money for stuff like this? Presumably the same folk who spend $50K for SUVs loaded with off-road features they'll never use.
I know, a lot of people screw it up, and you're one of them. It's VEGA, the "V" has a shadow with a silhouette. As another poster pointed out, the name originated from the german form of "Wega", which is still pronounced "Vega". The shadowed "V" is used in the manuals as well and is a Registered trademark.. see the little "r" after the name on the website you quoted? They wouldn't need to do that if it was just merely "Wega". I bought a "Wega" tv when they first came out about 3-4 years ago when they first came out, and promptly called up Sony to ask what the real pronunciation was (Vega). Please do your homework.
Turn on microwave oven, no watchy watchy TV.
Neighbor turn on microwave oven, no watchy watchy TV.
2.4ghz bad..
Now all I have to do is get an apartment next to a pr0n fiend and hook up my 2.4Ghz receiver to get free pr0n.
11*43+456^2
And if it's transmitting, does this mean that, similar to corless phones, you could tune in and watch what your neighbor is watching? I suppose you won't have to climb up the pole or get a pirate card for free HBO anymore.
IAAL
I don't see how this alone can hurt the review credibility, that's much like dissing a book written by a Brit because they spell a particular metal aluminium or how they spell colour.
Sony's Wega line is named after the star. While the name is pronounced "vega" it is also spelled "wega".
finally, a tv i can easily take to the bathroom when i wnt to take a long, uh ... bath.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
I've had nothing but trouble with Sharp. While this may be a semi-isolated ( I say semi-isolated because I know of similiar reports) case you should read this page about my troubles with them.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
I have been searching far and wide for a way to get decent video into my laptop...the USB tuners have a very low picture quality, because USB 1.1 doesn't have a high enough bandwidth for the video (it has to be compressed considerably). So far, I've found one USB 2.0 tuner, but I heard that it still doesn't compare to any PCI model, or for that matter, an actual television. And, I can probably forget getting HDTV into my laptop....help me if you know how !
Why hack my computer when you can simply park in front of my house in a non-descrip unmarked van, sniff my wireless keyboard, my wireless mouse, and now watch everything through my wireless LCD.
Looking at the history, this part of the law doesn't seem to have been recently changed. Has it?
I ain't carrying around a TV that costs that much, especially into the kitchen. Whoops! Dropped that knife right on the LCD :O
Sony's Wega line is named after the star. While the name is pronounced "vega" it is also spelled "wega".
We're not listening to the review, we're watching it. If the name of the product reviewed isn't even accurate, how much of the rest of the review can we trust?
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
Last time I tries the cordless power thing it fired my city. (SC2k)
Ed
Who is this "Poster" guy and why does he own all of my comments?!?
Try any electronic's manufacturer's product history exhibit. You'll find plenty of one button examples. I only have to take a short walk across the campus. Some of them are so basic it makes you wonder how they ever found a market.
On Sony's web sites, it's spelled "Wega" in plain-text. There's no confusion with a shadow or silhouette here. It's a W.
It's spelled "Wega", but yes, it is pronounced "Vega". Yes, it's completely stupid.
I will send this to CTO of a *big* corporation since I know him personally ( just friend ).
Web is a funny thing. You never know who is reading your web page !
I will track the page from now on.
Thanks for this information.
Let me re-phrase.
... well, I'll avoid another 'flamebait'.
It's absolutely silly to suggest Sony's choice of 5GHz is better than Sharp's choice of 2.4GHz.
Besides, we all learned from the movie "Signs" that even advanced alien beings able to cross galaxies... prefer to use 900MHz.
The comment: "The cordless Sony Vega TV series use 5GHz to avoid interference, so Sharp is a bit behind here." was lacking in
Next... we'll learn that "War and Peace" is a better book than "Danny and the Dinosaur"... because it has more pages.
Many people have said, "I don't see the point." The point is that you could have a TV hanging on the wall like a picture (maybe even framed) without wires running to it. To do this cleanly with wires you would have to cut a hole in the wall and snake some wires behind the wall board. Not all that fun for most normal consumers!