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.

Comments

Huh?

[Cyno01]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could hit pause on a Tivo and spend the $1000 you saved on a bigger TV or something.

Now, I can see a few uses for a wireless TV (being able to stick the tuner in one room and the screen + AC adapter in a room without a cable jack would be very useful), but bringing it with you to the bathroom so you don't miss 30 seconds of a game isn't one of the more practical ones, especially with the current price (roughly $1500USD and $2000USD). Heck, there's even cheaper ways to do the tuner-in-another-room thing too, although they're a bit more bulky and complicated.

You should also remember this is being sold in Japan, where space is generally at a premium. I can see people taking it out and setting it on a table to watch the news or whatever, then putting it back on a shelf in the closet when they're not using it, rather than have a TV permanently occupying space on a table or the floor. On the other hand, I don't see this being incredibly popular in America (if they ever sell it here), where it's not uncommon to have an entire room dedicated to bigscreen TVs and theater-quality sound systems.

UK TV License Quirks

[lewiz]

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 ;)

Fuel cells, anyone? Alt power sources?

[finelinebob]

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....

what about VCR ?

[Balise42]

IMHO it is completely pointless unless your VCR and DVD player are wireless too....

Too bad I can't use one..

[Myself]

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.

Big Question

[Bodrius]

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?

Re:Big Question

[Cloud 9]

How far do you have to go in a modern house to get to a TV outlet?

My house was built in the '70s. There wasn't a single cable tv outlet installed when it was built. When cable TV came around, holes had to be drilled in the exterior walls, and cable had to be dropped from the ceiling.

Then, when digital came out, more holes had to be drilled in the house, and more cable ran in order to get both cable internet and digital cable TV.

I'd say non-wired houses are more common than you think.

interference and integration

[fermion]

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.