Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"GiFi" — Short-Range, 5-Gbps Wireless For $10/Chip

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the can-you-say-giga dept.

Wireless Networking 190

mickq writes "The Age reports that Melbourne scientists have built and demonstrated tiny CMOS chips, 5 mm per side, that can transmit 5 Gbps over short distances — about 10 m. The chip features a tiny 1-mm antenna, a power amp that is only a few microns wide, and power consumption of only 2 W. 'GiFi' appears set to revolutionize short-distance data transmission, and transmits in the relatively uncrowded 60GHz range. Best of all, the chip is only about a year away from public release, and will only cost around US $9.20 to produce."

cancel ×

190 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bluetooth replacement? (1, Insightful)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514354)

At first blush, it seems like this is a bluetooth replacement, until you look at the cost of the chips- almost ten dollars per unit! Wowza- that means it'll cost $15 to put it in anything.

'Course, I don't know how expensive bluetooth chips are per unit, but I expect they're cheaper than that- especially with all the tiny USB bluetooth receivers you can find floating around for $19.99 and under these days.

That said, what else would it really replace or be used in?

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (4, Informative)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514478)

I believe BlueTooth's max transmission rate is 2.1 Mb/sec (for BlueTooth 2.0). 5 Gb/sec > 2.1 Mb/sec.

USB 1.1 adapters are pretty cheap, too...how much are they being used today?

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (4, Interesting)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514868)

True, but all USB 1.1 gizmos are backwards compatible with USB 2.0, and this is hardly backwards compatible with Bluetooth.

In this case you have a totally different standard that appears to be competing not so much in the PAN area but in the wireless-USB area, and in that respect I see it competing with UWB and WUSB. However, WUSB is only 480 Mbits per second...

That said, at the moment, WUSB seems to be a solution looking for a problem; which leads back to my original issue. Where is this going to come in handy at this price point? Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (4, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515104)

At this data rate, this appears to be not so much competing with the keyboard/mouse/printer USB connector than it does the DVI video connector. Now all we need is some of Tesla's magic to transmit the electricity wirelessly and we're home free.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515272)

x2, yes, this is going to eliminate video cables. Forever. yay!

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22515578)

Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable.

Except, perhaps, those who pay upwards of $35 for a real USB cable (like the "special" USB cable supposedly needed for my printer - yeah, right).

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (2, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514578)

Yeah but blutooth is only a couple of mbps and in practice seems to be much more susceptible to interference. The few times I've tried to use it for large data transfers have been pretty slow. Its just easier to grab a usb cable.

Right now there's a sort of race to come up with a bluetooth replacement. UWB, wireless USB, etc are the things this product wants to compete with.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514600)

I would think household wireless routers could utilize this since most small-medium sized houses will have a radius of about 10m from the router, or even businesses that would rather have an indoor WiFi(GiFi) available to customers rather than broadcasting outside of their building.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514694)

Not a bad idea. But I wonder how much at 10 m is affected by walls. I also wonder how much it's affected by interference from cordless phones and other wireless devices. Usually when they say the range is 10m, the actual usable distance is half that, and only when there's no walls.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (3, Insightful)

petecarlson (457202) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514780)

Walls? Forget about it. This is 60GHz your talking about. Good luck getting it out of the case you put the chip in let alone through a wall, your body, or too much oxygen.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (1)

JDWTopGuy (209256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515292)

Perhaps you could expound for those of us who don't know. I do (of course) trust everything I read on /. but in the interests of even moar knowledge, links are fine too.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514808)

If you're giving it away to your coffee shop customers then being stopped by walls could be a good thing.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (1)

bcwright (871193) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515400)

Besides the issue of how well this will transmit through walls, I don't think you can assume that 10m will be enough to cover a typical house. Unless you can put it close to the geometric center of the house, you're likely to have the signal attenuated at the other side, not to mention other floors. But often the center of the house is taken up by hallways or a stairway or something else where you wouldn't want to put a router. Available phone or cable connections are another consideration. So often you're left with putting it somewhat off-center, possibly even considerably off-center. If you have a "booster" unit to try to cover more of the house, how much would they interfere with each other? Even current wired consumer-grade LAN connections max out at about 1GB/s, so you couldn't put one at either end of the house (far enough apart so as not to interfere with each other too much) and joined by a wired LAN without losing a good bit of your bandwidth.

"Bluetooth replacement" may well be a better description of it's capabilities than "wireless LAN" enhancement. But is 5GB/s interesting enough for people to want to pay for the chip and the rather hefty power consumption when its main use would be to transfer music between your PC and your iPod? (Remember that limiting power consumption in mobile devices is a serious problem - high power consumption = low battery life). It's not as if the existing technologies for doing that are unbearably slow.

It's a very interesting technology, but we'll have to see what its capabilities and limitations are when and if it's released. I think it's likely that the final version may look significantly different from what's outlined in the article (which is basically a proof-of-concept prototype).

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (5, Insightful)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514908)

It consumes two watts of power. It is not a Bluetooth replacement. Using my phone for comparison: 1100mAh 3.7 V 3.7V / 2W = 1.85 A 1.1 Ah / 1.85 A = 0.59 Hours = approx. 36 Minutes. I know it won't be transmitting the whole time, but essentially this will be useless in a mobile application.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (5, Insightful)

ElGanzoLoco (642888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514974)

That said, what else would it really replace or be used in?

Short-range wireless video transmission, for one. From your IPTV box to your TV(s).

Case in point: at home, we just ditched cable and DSL and switched to an optic fibre triple-play (internet/IP TV/telephone) offer, which is much cheaper. For technical reasons the main receiver box can only be located near our entrance door, while the TV sits at the other side of the house.

Out of three possible solutions, none work well:
-laying an ethernet cable in the ceiling is possible, but a headache
-IP over the power lines is unreliable
-WiFi, regardless of the flavor, doesn't provide enough bandwidth (keep in mind that the box streams several HDTV channels at once, for instance when recording one while watching another)

So in our case, the proposed chip and protocol sounds ideal. 10m doesn't seem like a lot, but it's more than enough to cover most apartments / houses, and I expect it will be possible to get signal at much greater distances, with degraded signal. 2.5Gbps over 20m, wirelessly, would rock.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (1)

rwiggers (1206310) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515198)

Really, high definition video. I mean, remove that horrible cable between the CPU and the monitor. Full HD(1920x1080) uncompressed transfer would be around 1.5Gbps net. And please, don't come with lossy compression, this isn't for watching films.

Re:Bluetooth replacement? (1)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515264)

Of course they're going to be expensive in small quantities, but if this takes off, that price will come down drastically, to something more like $1-2 per chip, which will only increase usage. $10 isn't particularly expensive for cutting edge technology like this to begin with, so it really won't make much of a difference.

I think you'll also find most bluetooth receivers at the $19 price range are pieces of shit that aren't worth the money, and you'll have roughly 1000 times the speed or whatever? (I don't know the max speed of bluetooth but I think it's in the single digit Mbs range.)

They stole my idea! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514364)

I took out a patent for an electronic device that sends signals and has the number 10 in it! Those bloody Aussies stole my idea! I'll see you in Texas court!

WUSB (2, Insightful)

red star hardkore (1242136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514396)

So WUSB is going to be made redundant before it even becomes mainstream?

Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (5, Funny)

xdc (8753) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514410)

How do you pronounce Gi-Fi? "guy-fie"? "giffy"? "jiffy"?

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514444)

Gives a new meaning for GiFi Lube..

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (2, Insightful)

provigilman (1044114) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514468)

They should probably just make it "G-Fi" (pronounced as 'gee-fi') in order to avoid that confusion.

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514484)

How do you pronounce Gi-Fi? "guy-fie"? "giffy"? "jiffy"?
I think: Goofy! Then it can even apply to wireless fetching of your shoes.

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (2, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514714)

>>How do you pronounce Gi-Fi? "guy-fie"? "giffy"? "jiffy"?
>I think: Goofy! Then it can even apply to wireless fetching of your shoes.

Wouldn't that be Pluto?

Of course, Goofy is an amiable guy - he'd probably say "Golly, gee, Mickey! Hyuck!" ...and get them for you.

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (1)

MarkovianChained (1143957) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514492)

I vote for jiffy -- 'cause now you'll be able to get your wireless data in a jiffy!

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514758)

sounds like a lame joke that Seinfeld would make

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514572)

yiffy

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514642)

My vote would be for (Gy as in Gyro) Gi-Fi.

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514796)

Yes, because "Gyro" has no alternate pronunciations. I've hear Gyro (in reference to the sandwich) be pronounced in no less than 4 ways. Including Jiro, Yiro, Giro (with a hard G), and Hiro (no kidding).

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515124)

I was actually thinking of Gyroscope, but the sandwich did come to mind. So I guess (Hee)-Fi would be an alternative??

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (4, Funny)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514858)

How do you pronounce Gi-Fi?

Since the abbreviation is derived from "Wi-Fi", and before that "Hi-Fi", I take it that they all rhyme, therefore Gi-Fi would be pronounced "guy - fye".

And it is short for "guygabit fydelity".

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514942)

Depends. If they're intending Gi to be like Giga, as in Gigawatts, then it should be Ji-fi, like High-five without the 've'.

Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi (1)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515244)

Jigawatts. But you have to have a Delorean nearby for this to sound plausible.

We need a free version (3, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514476)

If you use the proprietary GiFi protocol you may end up getting into patent trouble.
We should create our own standard which does what we need and is not covered by existing patents.

I suggest we call this protocol PnGi.

Re:We need a free version (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514882)

We should create our own standard which does what we need and is not covered by existing patents.
I suggest we call this protocol PnGi.


I caught the GIF/PNG reference, but I'm afraid the new name you came up with for the new open source standard just does not sound silly enough.

How about "WuffoMax"?

Re:We need a free version (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514932)

We could kick it old school and use the recursive acronym...

PING (is not Gifi)

A lot going around (5, Interesting)

bandersnatch (176074) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514498)

Re:A lot going around (1)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515494)

The fact that the folks in the article actually have something that works. Vubiq says they have something but it's larger, and costs $12500 for a "development system", whatever that means, vice $10 for the one linked in the original article. All the other links you provided are still working on designs and haven't proven any design at all.

Routers (2, Insightful)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514502)

I would hope that this drops the price of wireless routers from what they are now, about US$60? The only drawback I could see is how the signal is transmitted through materials, as I live in a three story townhouse and I have a room in the furnished basement. I have a Wireless-G router that I have had no trouble with but from the article it says it is for short distances /= 10m with a 60GHz frequency. I would assume this is a high enough frequency to penetrate most household materials including any cement or cinderblocks. I'm all for it since most routers today just create a lot of noise and/or interference and confuse the laptop I have for some reason.

Re:Routers (1)

red star hardkore (1242136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514550)

I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the shorter the wavelength (higher frequency), the less penetration.

Re:Routers (1)

kd5ujz (640580) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514646)

Thats correct. Higher frequencies are more suceptable to reflection by anthing larger than the wavelength. Thats why this device usese a 1cm antenna. This thing will be mostly line of sight.

Re:Routers (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514890)

You must be new here. Most /.ers soon forget everything they ever learned about penetration within a couple of months of joining.

Re:Routers (1)

Raistlin77 (754120) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515348)

I thought that was a prerequisite...

Re:Routers (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515560)

If that were the case then we wouldn't be able to get any new members. For most people, the first time they ever plugged in a USB cable was quite a special moment. It takes a little while for the memes to totally eradicate any manly primal urges and associations that were once within.

Re:Routers (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514556)

That was supposed to be (less than/= 10m). That'll teach me to preview even if I don't use html.

Re:Routers (1)

smokytgab (1062510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514640)

No kidding, man. I'm still wired because the cost of a good wireless router and the equivalent wireless cards for all the computers I want to use in my house would be infeasible on my current budget (cheapass). Although the researchers seem to see this as a great technology for transmitting stuff to phones/Blu-ray players/crap like that, this would be _amazing_ for household LAN parties. No more cords, no more signal problems for wireless routers, life would be grand. Not to mention the $10 price tag makes me hope that enough companies will start competing that the price might just be reasonable enough for this kind of use. Hell, with this kind of technology, maybe they'll even get around to giving my dorm wireless internet (it's made out of solid concrete and our IT department's about 5 years behind, but one can still try to dream).

nothing to do with routers (1)

daniel422 (905483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515098)

This will have nothing to do with routers or wireless internet access of any kind. This will strictly be for unit-unit communication that is line of sight (since 60GHz won't penetrate ANYTHING), can't use wires, and needs high speed. It is NOT a bluetooth replacement or WUSB replacement. I'm trying to think of the applications for this, since line of sight will be critical and there are few things I can think of that would require 5Gbps and still be line of sight. Bluetooth is still fairly expensive to implement - despite the crappy $20 BT units you can buy in the store today. A BT module - that is a complete OEM bluetooth solution that is pre FCC and BT certified costs about $16-$20. Doing discrete designs can bring this down significantly.
$10 is cheap for such a chip. That's a final consumer cost of at least $50. This ain't gonna help your wifi.

Re:nothing to do with routers (1)

Raistlin77 (754120) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515482)

I'm trying to think of the applications for this, since line of sight will be critical and there are few things I can think of that would require 5Gbps and still be line of sight.


Home theater maybe? All of your equipment can be in a location other than the front of the room, leaving just the display and speakers in the general viewing area (as in seen from guests viewing positions), and the chip(s) could be used to transmit wireless HD audio and video to the display and speakers.

Latency? (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514536)

High transfer speeds is good but without good latency, wireless will not be a replacement for normal broadband for me.

Re:Latency? (1)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514814)

With a range of 10 meters this will not be a replacement for normal broadband.

"GiFi"??? (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514546)

Wow, do we ever abuse these words.

From "Hi-Fi" (High Fidelity) to "Wi-Fi" (Wireless, but the Fi sounds cool and people vaguely know what you mean) to "GiFi" as gigabit wireless, you've basically lost the actual underlying words.

It almost seems like the whole "Fi" part is now just generally meaning "technology thingy".

So, is a baker PieFi? A politician LieFi? Someone, please, stop the madness. :-P

Cheers

Re:"GiFi"??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514616)

THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!
sorry i just had to do it

Re:"GiFi"??? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22515018)

Right, because everyone remembers that "window" used to literally mean "eye of the wind". No-one cares about the "underlying" words, they're just groups of letters people put together when they discover a new concept they need a new word for.

So what if the "fi" suffix takes on a new meaning, different from its original one? Languages change, that's what they do. The only languages that don't evolve are _extinct_ languages. Get over it.

Disclaimer: IAAL (I am a linguist)
Captcha: hubris (heh)

Re:"GiFi"??? (1)

realthing02 (1084767) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515300)

yeah, that begs the question ;)

Re:"GiFi"??? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515306)

So what if the "fi" suffix takes on a new meaning, different from its original one? Languages change, that's what they do. The only languages that don't evolve are _extinct_ languages. Get over it.

You know, the school of thought that language evolves badly and shouldn't be commented on is just as annoying as thought that language doesn't and shouldn't evolve which you incorrectly attribute to me.

they're just groups of letters people put together when they discover a new concept they need a new word for

Is the official position of linguists that words are just random collections of letters chosen for convenience without any underlying structure to it? I think I have less respect for linguists now than before.

Of course languages change, that's fine. I'm just pointing out that this one is just weird and fairly unique to modern technology since it's just a lazy shorthand since the second use of "Fi" only happened within the last decade to the best of my knowledge.

Change does happen, not all of it is for the better, and not to be cataloged by academics who try to be objective about such things.

Go look up wanker, linguist boy. ;-)

Cheers

Re:"GiFi"??? (1)

Evil-G (529075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515374)

> So, is a baker PieFi? A politician LieFi? Someone, please, stop the madness. :-P

You're nearly there - try Pi-Fi and Li-Fi instead, just to make sure it is completely unclear what the meaning may be.

Re:"GiFi"??? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515562)

From "Hi-Fi" (High Fidelity) to "Wi-Fi" (Wireless, but the Fi sounds cool and people vaguely know what you mean) to "GiFi" as gigabit wireless, you've basically lost the actual underlying words.


True, but the WiFi Alliance (the ones behind the "WiFi" name, logo, and certification (as well as the "Wireless x" branding), and completely UNrelated to the IEEE) does it because they want to ensure compatitibility between various products. You do, after all, want to be able to connect your Intel chipset to your Netgear router while your friend's PC uses a D-Link card, for example. So it can be considered "wireless fidelity" in how 802.11-compatible all these devices are to the IEEE spec. (They're also the folks behind WPA while the IEEE and WPA worked to make 802.11i (known as WPA2)).

Alas, even certificated devices often have issues connecting in these modes, but that's another problem.

Re:"GiFi"??? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515692)

Yeah, GIFI stands for General Index Of Financial Information! Created by the Canada Revenue Agency in 1999, the GIFI is a system which assigns a unique code to a list of items commonly found on income statements, balance sheets, and statements of retained earnings. The purpose of the GIFI is to allow the CRA to collect and process financial information more efficiently; for instance, the GIFI lets the CRA validate tax information electronically rather than manually. Unpleasant...

Wow (3, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514548)

This thing does so much, that if anything can get me a date, this chip can.

Re:Wow (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514596)

This thing does so much, that if anything can get me a date, this chip can.

Oh, I'm sorry, didn't you get the memo? Believing a chip will get you a date disqualifies you from getting a date.

The women updated the rules again.

Cheers

Re:Wow (1)

DeadChobi (740395) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514706)

They do that every time we discover one of their rules. It keeps us on our toes, as well as providing them with hours of entertainment as they describe our latest fuckup to all their friends and coworkers.

Hot Gifi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514566)

so the chip area is 25 sq mm and the power consumption is 2 watts

thats one hot chip...

Re:Hot Gifi (1)

majorme (515104) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515308)

not necessarily, it only consumes 2 watts and I doubt it would dissipate that much heat.

X-Rays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514568)

Does it show pictures of your bones too?

Re:X-Rays (1)

red star hardkore (1242136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514604)

X-rays are between 10^12(THz) and 10^15(EHz) rather than 10^9(GHz).

Wireless Mouse (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514576)

OKay, so I can seriously power up my wireless mouse. What else is it good for?

Re:Wireless Mouse (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514660)

How about simply setting your ipod or smart phone near your computer and having everything sync up lickety split without having to use a cable.

Or how about a wireless connection between a set-top box and the TV that is mounted a couple feet up on the wall? Or a wireless connection between a computer and the display.

Or instantly creating a local network of all computers in a room?

Or ...

Re:Wireless Mouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22515156)

ah, the irony of slashdork rears it's ugly head once again. why bother to mention ipod when they have zero wireless support? at least microsoft tries to give the customer what they want in this area but the slashlemmings just continue to caw on about apple.

Re:Wireless Mouse (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514836)

Wireless HDTV (and computer monitors). Imagine a home theater system sans AV cables.

And wireless 5Gbit networking would be awesome, even if you did need a tiny repeater every 30 feet.

Potential uses (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514594)

Home entertainment centers: No more nasty cables.

NAT drive near PC or wireless hub: ditto

Mobile phone/bluetooth: Upload those movies before your next plane trip.

Translation (4, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514608)

"Best of all, the chip is only about a year away from public release, and will only cost around US $9.20 to produce"

To translate: This is vaporware, it may never be released in our lifetime, it may never actually work, and I have no fricken clue as to what it will actually cost.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514830)

from the article: ... To translate: This is vaporware ...

Given the stated chip area (25 sq mm) and the stated power consumed (2 watts) I'm not sure that this is vaporware but it may get damn close to becoming liquidware (liquid silicon)

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22515226)

You are likely right about this specific product, but this kind of technology is coming fast. Sadly, what these guy are real going to do is soak up as many patents as possible, then wait until someone does finally make a profitable product and sue.

Re:Translation (1)

Jamil Karim (931849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515418)

"Best of all, the chip is only about a year away from public release, and will only cost around US $9.20 to produce"

To translate: This is vaporware, it may never be released in our lifetime, it may never actually work, and I have no fricken clue as to what it will actually cost.
Next year's model has five 10 pound weights attached to the device. A user just has to lift the weights, and as they fall, they power the chip for 4 hours!!! When they reach the bottom, just move them back to the top!

Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... (2, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514622)

...and will cost $500 to get in your grubby paws. That is until the amazing powers of supply and demand take effect and the price drops over an unjustifiable period of time. The demand for 5G wireless will be huge...

Re:Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514824)

If it costs $500, then the demand will probably not be as huge as you imagine.

Re:Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515180)

...and will cost $500 to get in your grubby paws. That is until the amazing powers of supply and demand take effect and the price drops over an unjustifiable period of time. The demand for 5G wireless will be huge...
Considering its range why not just use a cable its allot cheaper.

I don't see any real use for this it lacks the range to provide Internet access to ALL of my house and I hardly need high speed data transfer to my mouse.

~Dan

Re:Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... (1)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515570)

You might not need it to your mouse, but would you want it to your billion inch HD plazma hanging on the wall so you don't need to run cables? There are plenty of uses for this. No, none of them are necessary and it's certainly more expensive than cables, for now, but more uses will present themselves in the future too. People didn't used to have any need of a home computer, but that didn't stop the industry from developing such that it's considered a standard appliance in most houses (in developed countries) these days.

Trademark Infringement (4, Funny)

DogAlmity (664209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514672)

There's already a gay internet cafe near my house called Guy-Fi, and I think they're gonna be pissed.

What about interference problems? (1)

red star hardkore (1242136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514702)

As it's such a high frequency that according to some quick research is highly susceptible to interference, wouldn't that make it difficult to integrate into a laptop or similar? And I suppose we could forget about internal cards for desktops, or expansion cards, as the steel/aluminium chassis' of PC's would block the signal?

Re:What about interference problems? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514978)

At 60GHz, interference from WHAT? That's a very uncrowded part of the spectrum and there isn't too much natural noise up that high, let alone man made.

Care to cite that "quick research?"

2 Watts? (4, Insightful)

Undead Ed (1068120) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514716)

I don't think so.

The dimensions that are discussed are unrealistic when considering heat dissipation let alone power conduction at that scale.

Further, it is a far cry from ideal lab results to real world conditions with the myriad of problems facing super high frequency technology!

I smell a rain dance - a promotional announcement to attract financial angels.

Ed

huge power consumption (3, Insightful)

cerelib (903469) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514744)

His chip uses only a tiny one-millimetre-wide antenna and less than two watts of power

Typically, these types of networks measure power consumption in mW, not W.

Re:huge power consumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22515150)

For smaller devices, yes, that is a dampening fact. What about HDTVs and cable boxes? Would this be enough wireless bandwidth to take away the cables from your home theatre rig and a low enough wattage (compared to the overall usage of the device in which the chip is housed) to make it's power consumption acceptable?

Re:huge power consumption (1)

fenrisulfur (1093549) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515352)

I think you mixed up power consumption for power output.
But I may be wrong.

Two watts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514770)

This device is a power hungry speed demon. This clearly isn't wireless mouse territory.

GiFi? (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514802)

Short for "GirlFriend"? Ok, I was joking there but I'm still wondering what in the hell the "fi" is for. WiFi the Wi is "wide" and GiFi the Gi is obviously "gigabit". The old "HiFi" stood for "high fidelity".

WTF does "Fi" stand for in WiFi and GiFi?

Re:GiFi? (1)

djasbestos (1035410) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514888)

I was told "Wired Fidelity" at one point, touting the reliability of WiFi and comparable speed (initially) to 10 Mbit hardline ethernet..."it's like ethernet except no wires!". Take that for a what you will.

Re:GiFi? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515776)

Reliability=fidelity? Dunno, sounds dubious to me. I think it was some originality-challenged ass burger that didn't know what HiFi stood for but thought it sounded cool. But I keep hoping I'm wrong.

TWAIN, now, that's a good one, I like TWAIN.

Re:GiFi? (1)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514906)

The Wi in WiFi is for wireless.

The Fi clearly has been taken from Hi-Fi so means fidelity, which obviously means nothing in this case and they've just made something up that sounds like something peple are used to.

*checks wikipedia* Yep apparently it's meant to be Wireless Fidelity. Which is a load of shite imho.

Re:GiFi? (2, Informative)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514956)

Here's some more info. Yep it's just a brand name. The WIFi alliance referred to it in slogans as wireless fidelity though, even though it doesn't mean anything, and apparently now they're trying to backtrack on it.

http://www.teleclick.ca/2005/12/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-wi-fi/ [teleclick.ca]

2W???? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514910)

In a 5mm package, that would probably cause rapid failure due to heat without some form of high-flux heat sinking capability.

If it's a QFN package, it probably has a thermal relief slug, but still, 2W is a boatload of energy to dissipate.

Only? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514918)

power consumption of only 2 W

Two watts of power usage is at conflict with the form factor. That amount of power usage will prevent the device from being used in items which need the tiny form factor.

Price per chip is meaningless (1)

Rgb465 (325668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515140)

Price per chip is meaningless -- just look at CAN controllers. Self-contained CAN transceiver ICs can be found for as cheap as a dollar a piece, but finding a usable USB CAN dongle or PCMCIA card for less than $200 is an exercise in masochism.

Only $10 you say? No problem... (1)

majorme (515104) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515192)

Logitech will sell those for $50 each. And that would be just the basic package, wait for the G or MX series...

Solar Powered Networking (1)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515384)

If these chips become reality I'll be spreading them all over the place up tree's ontop of buildings wow I can see it now the people's network, now nobody can stop us file sharing.

Hotspots (3, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515450)

So if local coffee shops offer internet access with one of these, they can advertise that they have wireless G-spots!

I hope they dont screw up (1)

johnsie (1158363) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515542)

They screwed up bluetooth on phones... It could've been so much better if they'd let people send sms messages to people nearby using bluetooth or having bluetooth chat on all phones. Then I'd be able to stalk people while commuting.

Bring it on (2, Informative)

OxFF52 (1126819) | more than 6 years ago | (#22515806)

While they are the first ones out of the gate with an all-in-one CMOS solution, I doubt they will be the only ones. Look for Intel to have something available later this year (with the marketing power to make it successful). What we need now is someone like Sony or Toshiba to jump on board so that TVs (er, should I say monitors now) and audio receivers are integrated as well.

I mean WOW... $10 for something that has the transceiver and antenna on ONE single CMOS chip is awesome. Prior technologies required so silicon and multiple chips, etc. This will be huge!

Set-top-boxes will be the LAST ones to get involved. This is unfortunate since they are essentially what 90% of the population will be looking for (cable, satellite, IPTV).

I've seen a lot of responses whether this will be a replacement for blue-tooth or USB. Well, it's not really in the same category, so NO, it won't be either of those. USB is wired, bluetooth is not, but GiFi could really be so much more (I really hate the term GiFi and prefer "WirelessHD"). In that respect (see http://www.wirelesshd.org/ [wirelesshd.org] ), it should really be thought of as an ad-hoc wireless network... not a TCP/IP network, but one dedicated to the coordination of media transmitters and receivers. At least that is my hope, because if it gets shoe-horned into something that already exists like WiFi, or bluetooth it will be a total waste of energy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>