Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What went wrong with wireless USB

oldvcr.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#81

Post by torginus »

dist-epoch wrote: post #43
variaga wrote: post #10

I worked on the design of wireless USB chips around 2008 - 2010. They worked - you really could get USB 2.0 full rate connections wirelessly and we had some neat demos. I would say the major problem it had with adoption was that wired USB also provided power . (A lot more people use usb to charge their phone than to sync their phone.) So great - wireless connectivity... but you still have to plug the device into a ca…

> which makes the value proposition a lot less clear. Wirelessly transferring files between a phone and a computer seems like a big use case. Still no easy standard way of doing it.

This is an UX problem, not a technical problem. You could easily use Wifi to transfer files between devices quite fast, there's just no agreed upon open protocol for it. Afaik that's how AirDrop works.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#82

Post by torginus »

nurettin wrote: post #15
variaga wrote: post #10

I worked on the design of wireless USB chips around 2008 - 2010. They worked - you really could get USB 2.0 full rate connections wirelessly and we had some neat demos. I would say the major problem it had with adoption was that wired USB also provided power . (A lot more people use usb to charge their phone than to sync their phone.) So great - wireless connectivity... but you still have to plug the device into a ca…

I don't see why Bluetooth took off and wusb didn't. It must have something to do with marketing.

Introducing a new wireless protocol is incredibly difficult. You basically have to have all the countries in the world to give you a chunk of their spectrum.

You have 2 mainstream protocols now, one for low energy, slow data transfers (Bluetooth) and one for fast, but more power hungry devices.

I don't see the usecase for UWB.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#83

Post by miki123211 »

kmarc wrote: post #56
dist-epoch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which makes the value proposition a lot less clear. Wirelessly transferring files between a phone and a computer seems like a big use case. Still no easy standard way of doing it.

I assume this is the same "problem". Most people (not the HN cohort) don't want to transfer "files", the abstraction of the file is either outdated for them or maybe even unnatural / unknown (younger generation). They might want to transfer (a better word: share) photos/videos, documents, etc. And for those they use specific apps and "the cloud". No "files" (for the sake of files), and barely any hierarchy of (folder…

Also, they want to use the same "abstraction" for "sharing photos with their friend when they're on holiday in another country" versus "sharing photos with that same friend when they just got back and are literally sitting next to each other."

People don't really internalize that those are two different use cases.

Yes there's Airdrop, but I think most people view it as more of a "discoverability" solution than a file sharing solution. If you met somebody you don't have a number for, "okay just Airdrop this to me" is much easier than doing the whole song and dance of adding them to contacts and sending them an iMessage or finding them on Whats App. Whether the actual file transfer part of Airdrop goes over the internet or over Bluetooth isn't something most people care about, as long as it can discover nearby devices and initiate a transfer to them, it's good enough.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#84

Post by numpad0 »

adrianN wrote: post #76
hnlmorg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when Bluetooth was new, the alternative for wirelessly sharing data between mobile devices like phones was infrared. IR was exceptionally slow, required line-of-sight and even at the time, felt like a shitty solution. So even though the early implementations of Bluetooth also left a lot to be desired (battery hungry, insecure, and also slow), it was still a massive improvement on what came before. Wireless USB w…

I wonder why IR is slow. Shouldn’t there be plenty of bandwidth available at those frequencies?

Not through a tiny photodiode + amp on a spare UART RX, if not repurposed TV remote phototransistor. They can be slow.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#85

Post by usrusr »

kensai wrote: post #11
gizmo686 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Wifi nor Bluetooth are a 1:1 replacement for wireless USB, in that neither allow you to use a standard USB device without a wired path between the device and host. In theory, Bluetooth ought to be the replacement for most use cases, and would simply require replacing your USB devices with Bluetooth devices. In practice, Bluetooth is still kind of terrible, so I'm tempted to say any alternative timeline where…

It used to be the case that BT was terrible, but in the last few years I have increasingly stable device connections. Could it be they simply ironed out the bugs over the years, the standard matured, and also the manufacturers are more compliant? It just works for me, no horror stories. And BT LE is indeed low energy. Btw, do you have any other suspected reason (politics aside) that wireless USB did not catch on?

The real change is that BT LE isn't just about low energy. That might have actually been the original intention, but in practice it is so good beyond that core area of competence that it has also displaced classic Bluetooth in fields like audio streaming, connections beyond strictly PAN distance and so on. And it will only get better as more remnants of Old Bluetooth are disappearing from devices, that have been retained for backwards compatibility.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#86

Post by fragmede »

adrianN wrote: post #76
hnlmorg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when Bluetooth was new, the alternative for wirelessly sharing data between mobile devices like phones was infrared. IR was exceptionally slow, required line-of-sight and even at the time, felt like a shitty solution. So even though the early implementations of Bluetooth also left a lot to be desired (battery hungry, insecure, and also slow), it was still a massive improvement on what came before. Wireless USB w…

I wonder why IR is slow. Shouldn’t there be plenty of bandwidth available at those frequencies?

These days, professional optical equipment, aka expensive lasers+supporting hardware, can do 10-Gbit over multiple kilometers through the air, so you're right that optical transmission through the air should be able to support higher data rates.

The problem with Irda is that it's old. Technology has significantly advanced since the 90's, when Irda was popular on cellphones, so a modern implementation could do better data rates even accounting for the significant interference from the environment. We barely had wifi back then, and now it'll do a few hundred megabytes per second without breaking a sweat (your ISP might though). All the technology required to do that didn't exist in the 90's. We have Bluetooth now though, so there's that same bootstrapping problem, where you'd just use Bluetooth, and not spend a bunch of money building a system very few people are asking for, so then there's little demand for a modern high performance Irda system in any devices.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#87

Post by ajross »

Interestingly one of the competing chipsets for Wireless USB lives on today... in the market-leading[1] Spektrum radios for RC vehicle control. Their DSMx protocol is based on the Cypress Semiconductor products, which are still available in the market despite not being recommended for new designs.

[1] But certainly not best. Consensus for "best" goes to the open source ExpressLRS work based on the Semtech LoRa products.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#88

Post by kmarc »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #73
kmarc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this is the same "problem". Most people (not the HN cohort) don't want to transfer "files", the abstraction of the file is either outdated for them or maybe even unnatural / unknown (younger generation). They might want to transfer (a better word: share) photos/videos, documents, etc. And for those they use specific apps and "the cloud". No "files" (for the sake of files), and barely any hierarchy of (folder…

I believe in the opposite. Because we can't transfer easily transfer files between devices remotely, we had to get used to do it via apps. And so we didn't developed good, local files browsers (esp. for media) and companies invested in the cloud UI mostly because they could sell the storage and sharing capabilities. That was all unnecessary but we're used to that now to a point where sharing files is weird. As a powe…

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally happy woth files. In fact, I'm sometimes a bit annoyed when certain apps' entities don't map to files either accidentally or to maintain the walled garden on purpose (I'm looking at you Google Photos, and the very cumbersome rclone connector to it).

On the other hand, I don't mind that full storage access is a "pain"; I don't even remember which apps I gave the permission to, and I would certainly be angry if my syncthinged files would be stolen by other app that went vicious.

All that said, as people don't think about their documents/photos/any other stuff in their homes as "filed items in folders", non-tech people also don't think about their digital items as such. And maybe this is alright, if the "file-ification" would have been so successful, better products would have emerged.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#89

Post by miki123211 »

consp wrote: post #66
kmarc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this is the same "problem". Most people (not the HN cohort) don't want to transfer "files", the abstraction of the file is either outdated for them or maybe even unnatural / unknown (younger generation). They might want to transfer (a better word: share) photos/videos, documents, etc. And for those they use specific apps and "the cloud". No "files" (for the sake of files), and barely any hierarchy of (folder…

> and barely any hierarchy of (folders etc). One of my great hate pet peeves with all smartphone and cloud apps is the "abstraction" and reliance on search. For me folders is quicker and less error prone, and as a bonus it saves on unneeded bandwidth (to load previews) and computing costs. Also stop telling me I must use your one off "feature set" of sorting and ordering which either nobody uses or copies differently…

Folders as an abstraction don't really make sense beyond documents, though.

If your music is stored in a folder hierarchy, and can, in principle, be located anywhere, how do you index it to provide a library view? How do you distinguish it from random audio files that just happen to be ID3 tagged, but which you don't want as part of your permanent music collection? How do you efficiently react to deletion events? What happens if you delete an entire artist's worth of music from your music app? Should it delete the files, or only the library entries? If it deletes files, what if (some of) that music was in a folder that didn't contain any other files? Should that folder be gone too, or should you be left with an empty folder or hierarchy? What if the folder also contained a .nfo, is it good UX if it deletes the music and just leaves the .nfo?

If the only tool you have is a computer, everything is a file. If you're a music lover and not a computer enthusiast, you tend to think about albums, artists and playlists, and that's how you want to view your music collection.

Re: What went wrong with wireless USB

#90

Post by kmarc »

afiori wrote: post #65
kmarc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this is the same "problem". Most people (not the HN cohort) don't want to transfer "files", the abstraction of the file is either outdated for them or maybe even unnatural / unknown (younger generation). They might want to transfer (a better word: share) photos/videos, documents, etc. And for those they use specific apps and "the cloud". No "files" (for the sake of files), and barely any hierarchy of (folder…

I want to add something to this: abandoning the fire layer allows for richer custom flows (which to many are arguably worse) For example the file API does not allow a clean, uniform, and reliable way to associate a resource with some metadata

The file API might not, but all major filesystems implemented some kind off Metadata attributes, IIRC Microsoft was wanting to heavily rely on that for "user space" stuff (e.g. Users leveraging it for semantic information about their files)
Post reply on HN