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!)
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.
so when I am running outta that store that we just looted, I could also be watching the cops chasing me on live TV.
- 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!
I apologise for my sarcasm, but obviously this is feasible, since it has been done before countless times. :) I don't know how much battery time is in such a TV, but with a normal laptop battery, 4 hours seem completely possible. And you should watch more TV than that, anyway. ;)
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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 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.
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....
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...
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
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.
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.