USB Going Wireless

NathanJ writes "Device Forge is running a technical whitepaper on wireless USB. The article states that 'Already there has been some progress with the definition of a WUSB specification with a targeted bandwidth of 480 Mbps. This specification maintains the same usage and architecture as wired USB with a high-speed host-to-device connection.' And that 'the WUSB host can logically connect 127 WUSB devices.' So what am I going to do with my Bluetooth desktop?" Update Holy Deja vu batman... here is an earlier Slashdot article that I missed from 3 weeks ago. Oops.

Comments

Your Bluetooth desktop?

[dokebi]

Put it in the trash of course. Another victim of early adoption.

Re:Your Bluetooth desktop?

[Kenja]

"Put it in the trash of course. Another victim of early adoption."

Whats a "bluetooth desktop"? I've got a desktop with a bluetooth adaptor in it. Even should it magicly stop working when wireless USB comes out the adaptor only cost me 14$, so its not that big a loss.

Re:Your Bluetooth desktop?

[MBCook]

Nope.

I don't see it that way. Bluetooth is a great technology. It's slow speed do limit it's applications, but for you mouse and your keyboard and syncing up your cell phone and such, it works great and there is no reason to replace it. It is also low power, isn't it?

WUSB on the other hand is FAST. It seems like a waste to use it for a keyboard or mouse. That said, it will work great in those areas where BT is too slow. Wouldn't it be great to set your iPod next to your laptop and have it sync up all the songs in a few seconds? Or to print wirelessly (BT does this, but if you wanted to print a photo it would be slooooooowwwwww). Want a new hard drive? Set it next to your computer and it works. Same thing with that new camera you got that has WUSB. Just keep it near your PC and you can get your pictures with no wires. How about a wireless soundcard? Or even a (he he he) wireless USB wireless network adaptor! The idea of having a flash key thing built into your watch is nice, but imagine if it was WUSB! Just walk up to any computer and thanks to WUSB you have access to the files that are on your wrist without any cables or anything else (after a password for security or something, of course).

And because WUSB supports limited P2P stuff (IIRC), you could move your iPod next to your WUSB hard drive and have them sync without the computer (after all, all the data is in the iTunes database files) or have your camera download the pictures to your hard drive, or print your pictures without a computer or wires. For things needing high bandwidth, WUSB is the way to go. For many other things, BT is still great.

Now you can find many of those things I listed above with BT right now. There are BT printers, a BT camera,, and more. But while BT works for low bandwidth things, trying to move pictures from a camera to your PC through BT is supposed to be agonizingly slow. I wouldn't want to print 5MP photos over BT either.

I think there is room for both. It's if BT speeds up fast enough in time that we could be in for a fight. Otherwise I think they serve different enough markets that things will be OK.

Re:Your Bluetooth desktop?

[SensitiveMale]

you could move your iPod next to your WUSB hard drive and have them sync without the computer

Yeah, I can just see Apple putting WUSB in the iPod RIGHT NOW.

Early?!

[oO Peeping Tom Oo]

I think we gave them enough of a chance! C'mon, enough is enough....specifications dont matter if there's no product suppor....

Not the Thing For Me

[JaxWeb]

I don't think this is the product for me... I plug in my MP3 player, Digital Camera, Scanner, Printer and Bluetooth Gizmo in from USB (My keyboard is also a mini-USB hub). None of those really have to be a distance from my Computer.

There are already solutions for people who want their Keyboard or Printer a distance away from their computers without wires. What would make these people use this solution?

Re:Not the Thing For Me

[Morgahastu]

It's not about distance and keeping your peripherals far away, it's about not having any wires. I'd rather just plop my mp3 player on my desk and have it sync then have to plug it in and find an empty usb port or buy a usb hub to plug it in.

I look at the back of my desk and it makes me cry to see the mess of wires and all the different cables I have for all my devices.

Wireless USB would be a godsend. See my other post regarding why I think bluetooth sucks

Distance?

[pholower]

I read through the paper, but I don't remember seeing anything about how far the transmission would go. If it is being compared to bluetooth, is it 30 feet. Or is this something that could also take over WiFi and go hundreds of feet? I would love to have a home network with a +400Mbps bandwidth.

Re:Low Power

[LostCluster]

We've got Bluetooth at low power, WiFi for distance applications... where's WUSB supposed to fit in?

If only firewire could do this as well

[CrackedButter]

Then it would be more exciting, imagine a hard drive wireless at a real speed of 400mps, never mind trying it with FW800. You could stream the DV off a camera right onto an external HD, think of the time saved if it was automatic as soon as you walked through the door?

Bluetooth for phones

[ewg]

The article looks like WUSB is oriented toward device-to-host communication. Bluetooth supports connections between many different kinds of devices. Phones and accessories are a natural here. (After all, Bluetooth originated with Sweden's Ericsson.)

My favorite Bluetooth application is moving camera-phone photos to my laptop. My second-favorite application is laptop-to-bluetooth-to-phone-to-GPRS-to-internet.

Need it on my stereo receiver

[James McP]

More than my PC. Really, there aren't many external devices I have for my PC that don't require power and a rather easily managed cable thanks to convenient hubs.

What I *do* need is an easier time with my A/V setup. Swapping out components is bad but adding anything new is nightmarish. Deciding which devices should be analog, S-Video, optical, or digital coax is mind numbing. I'd hoped I could firewire everything together but that hasn't happened either, darn it.

Give me a receiver, DVD player, Tivo, consoles, TVs and speakers with WUSB and I'll be happy. Plug the buggers into a power strip and watch as magic happens and everything chats. Sure, It'll probably need a PAN ID of somesort to limit bleed between setups but dang, it'd make it so much easier to drop a DVD changer and another console or 3 into the setup.

Security?

[David Hume]

From the whitepaper:

WUSB security will ensure the same level of security as wired USB. Connection-level security between devices will ensure that the appropriate device is associated and authenticated before operation of the device is permitted. Higher levels of security involving encryption should be implemented at the application level. Processing overhead supporting security should not impose noticeable performance impacts or add device costs.

The above is certainly a requirement for WUSB to take off. However, it does not specify either a means or a method to achieve that goal.

Also, what is this bit about, "Higher levels of security involving encryption should be implemented at the application level?" Will we need to replace our applications with WUSB-Security Enabled (tm) apps?

Finally, long range WUSB coupled with the same level of understanding of, and dedication to, security consumers re: WIFI could make WUSB truly exciting.

Re:Absolutely

[Morgahastu]

USB devices that get charged from the USB power are a minority. And if we had wireless power then alot of the worlds problem would be solved ;)

But it raises another issue, why can't we have standard power adapters? Why can't someone make a universal power adapter that adjusts power output for the specific device? BAH

Re:Why bluetooth has failed

[Moofie]

OK, unless I'm totally stupid, lots more devices available support Bluetooth than support Wireless USB.

Will it be better supported tomorrow? Who knows. What I do know is that any time device interconnection standards become balkanized, computer users lose.

Re:Low Power

[MoonBuggy]

Low range, high speed. It's damn irritating having cable spaghetti for all my current USB devices, locating the appropriate connector for device X, Y or Z when I need to attach it and then realising that I need to unplug device A to make space for whatever I just located the cable for.

Bluetooth is too slow for many USB applications. Keyboard and mouse, yes, but even synching my PDA over BT is irritating especially if I want to backup the 128MB memory card. WiFi in my digital camera is unneccesary and if I had a decent cam (which I will probably purchase when I actually have some cash) I don't want to have to transfer 1GB+ of high resolution images over a 54Mbit connection.

WUSB is not an essentia protocol I admit, but it sounds like it will be damn convenient.

480 Mbps wirelessly?

[SensitiveMale]

Awesome idea, 480Mbps wirelessly.

I'm still waiting for USB to provide 480 Mbps with wires.

Re:Ummm... not quite

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

If I'm using wireless USB, why would I want a power cord?

Power outlets are ubiquitous. If you run low, you can always add another power strip. A cheap extension cord takes care of distance. On the other hand, running a 50' USB cable is a pain in the ass if you do it right, or ugly if you do it quick.

Not sure I'd have a use for it in any event, but I know my Dad would love to be able to scan crap to his laptop without draping the cable across the office for the dogs to get tangled in.
--------------

Another issue about security:

[uradu]

> Higher levels of security involving encryption
> should be implemented at the application level.

Basically this means that secure communications will be up to the vendors, since it's not part of the standard. What that means is that you can forget widespread compatibility. While BT has had its teething problems with compatibility, theoretically at least any headset should work with any phone. Using WUSB however that wouldn't be guaranteed at all, since each vendor could offer their own encryption implementation.

The article is also glossing over authentication, only stating that WUSB will use the same authentication as wired USB. What authentication?! AFAIK standard USB uses the tried-and-true authentication method of assuming that if it can talk to a device, it obviously must be connected to the bus, and since it's a physical local area bus, the person who plugged it in obviously had physical access to it and was thus "authorized". This particular chicken won't fly with WUSB, though.

Re:Why bluetooth has failed

[FirstTimeCaller]

In my opinion, Bluetooth has failed because it is trying to be a wireless USB. Got a USB keyboard or mouse? There's a Bluetooth wireless alternative. But that is not where Bluetooth excels.

The real power behind Bluetooth is the ability to participate in dynamic short range ad-hoc networks. Walk into a Starbucks and place/pay for an order via Bluetooth. Want to know where the heck you are? Query the nearest Bluetooth enabled milepost. Need to print a map? Send it to the nearest Bluetooth printing kiosk.

Of course you can't do any of these things today. Why not? Because everyone only sees it (Bluetooth) as a wireless USB! (What's dynamic or ad-hoc about a keyboard for kris-sake?).

So I say... bring on wireless USB, let it take its proper role and then maybe we can use Bluetooth they way it was intended.

Too much power for PDAs & Phones

[tsaimelv]

The article claims a 300 mW power target for WUSB implementations - this is about the same as a WiFi implementation on a PDA, which is already a lot. WUSB simply *cannot* take over as a super-low-power wireless technology based on that number. Bluetooth implementations use 10x less power. For example, WUSB can't possibly replace bluetooth hands-free microphones for cellular. WUSB isn't going to connect PDAs to cellphones for internet connections. WUSB isn't going to succeed in a battery-powered wireless mouse. The list goes on... Bluetooth, for all of its failed promises, is truly becoming entrenched in these types of applications. WUSB can only complete if it has a low-speed, low-power "peripheral mode" ala USB 1.1 vs. USB 2.0.

Re:Ummm... not quite

[milkman_matt]

WUSB is obviously a solution in search of a problem.

Yeah, i'm gunna have to go ahead n' ..disagree with ya' there...

Sure, you don't want to trade in your USB cable for a power cable, but what about things where you could use the range of bluetooth, and the speed of USB, You don't think it would be good for things like digital cameras? where you use AA anyway. How about a printer, which has a separate power cable as it is, now the printer only has 1 cable instead of 2. Scanners? Same deal, and that'd be a nice application. I wouldn't mind a little WUSB Flash drive.. Sure, it would work over BT, but the speed would blow... Wireless K/b and Mice.. well, I don't like them, but bluetooth is good for that. We've got enough f'ing wires now as it is. I think there's a lot of useful reasons to have WUSB, yes, bluetooth is still useful, still good for its applications, but I think WUSB would be great for stuff that already uses regular alkaline batteries or already have a power cable where it needs more speed than BT. It's a perfect solution, for an annoying problem. I want as few wires as humanly possible.. I'll be happy when all i've got is power cables, hehe. Personally, I can't wait for wireless PC speakers :)

-matt