Another wireless HDMI casualty: Belkin cancels FlyWire

Goodbye, FlyWire: The now-cancelled product will never see store shelves.

(Credit: Belkin)

Belkin will not be releasing its FlyWire wireless HDMI accessory.

CNET has learned that the company has decided not to offer the FlyWire for sale. A Belkin spokesperson confirmed the product's cancellation, saying that "its retail price of $1,499 would be out of line given the current state of the economy."

The FlyWire was introduced at CES 2008. The unit was a transmitter/receiver combo: the transmitter toggled between multiple audio and video sources (HDMI and analog), which were then wirelessly beamed to a receiver. Since the tiny receiver required only AC power and utilized a single HDMI output, it could be stealthily mounted behind wall-mounted flat screens or ceiling mounted projectors, eliminating the need for long unsightly cable runs. At one point, Belkin was mulling two versions: an initial high-end, multiroom-capable $1,499 version for multiple AV sources, followed by a less pricey single-source transmitter.

Early demos of the FlyWire impressed us--enough that we nominated it as a finalist in the Home Video category for Best of CES 2008. (It was edged out by the Dish Network DTVPal DVR.) But the FlyWire's premature death is just another indication that wireless HDMI technology is all but stillborn at the consumer level. Other notable no-shows, at least so far: the Philips wireless HDMI kit (introduced January 2007) and the Monster Express HD System (announced summer 2008).

So, where does that leave consumers looking for wireless HDMI options? The Gefen's EXT-HDMI and Sony DMX-WL1 Bravia Wireless Link remain the only mainstream wireless HDMI solutions available to consumers. The Gefen costs between $700 and $1,000, while the Sony can be had for under $500--pricey, to be sure, but not unreasonable when compared to the cost of hiring a custom installer to bury cables behind your walls.

The Gefen product utilizes ultrawideband (UWB) technology from a company called TZero; the latter company filed for bankruptcy soon after the product shipped. The Belkin utilized a rival technology from Amimon, which has been making headway with a standard dubbed WHDI. But standards--especially ones that hope to offer interdevice support from multiple manufacturers--take time.

In other words, we're all but certain to see more wireless HDMI announcements in the coming months and years. But a wider array of products--especially ones that are affordable--still look to be a long way off.

Additional reading:
Where is wireless HDMI?
Wireless HDMI: Three ways to cut the cord

[monkeyfun14]

$1,500?<br />******* thats more then the TV it's self...

[monkeyfun14]

And lmfao there solution was more expensive then Monster Cables I didn't think that was possible.

[jaguar717]

It's *THAN* dammit. Than = comparison. Then = order.<br /><br />And while $1500 is expensive, they surely weren't marketing it to people buying the $999 special at Best Buy...anyone doing that is buying generic $10 cables and running them along the wall.<br /><br />It's obviously going to start as a premium product, so for it to sell for ~$500 would probably be reasonable.

[gsigas]

Lower the price to $150 and then we'll talk.

[ikramerica--2008]

That's ridiculous.<br /><br />A switching wireless HDMI sender receiver that works in HD for $150? Just running all the cables you are replacing would cost more than that.

[ivorycruncher]

I don't know how they can come up with that kind of a price tag. I'm currently using generic $7 HDMI cables that are no poorer in signal quality than the high-end stuff. Believe me, I've checked. At most, the improvement would be so minute that there's no way it could justify the cost increase.<br /><br />So, when somebody can sell fully-functional HDMI cables in the $7-15 ballpark, how on earth can a switching device for the format possibly cost $1500? I know that can't possibly be due to royalties (if it is, our patent system is beyond all hope). The $150 price point would be much more realistic, although still ridiculous in my book.<br /><br />Oh well, my TV has 3 HDMI ports, and it's just enough for what I need - DirecTV HD-DVR, media center PC, and PS3 for Blu-Ray.

[ddesy]

Well, the DRM requirements don't exactly help. There will need to be two way wireless communication between the transmitter and receiver to allow HDCP handshakes between the TV and source, and I'm sure there are some nice royalties involved there. Still, I'm sure that it could be made available for much less than $1,500.<br /><br />I'm with you on the inexpensive cables, though. If the inexpensive cables can handle 1080P with "Deep Color" and the like (which they do), there is no reason for most cables to cost what they do let alone the other accessories.

[make_or_break]

I'm sure if you just cobbled the PARTS together you could certainly make and sell it for less than the $1500US MRP. But then what about all of that R&#38;D as well as all of the legals and patent research Belkin had to subject itself to just THINKING about bringing this thing to market? Assembly line and fabrication startup costs? Even in China it costs SOMETHING. And if indeed there is existing patents that Belkin has to license, then that takes a chunk...however ridiculous you might think the patent system is. Prior art is prior art. The fact that Belkin suspended bringing the device to market rather than seeking a lower price point seems to say A LOT on how much this puppy really DID cost to build. <br /><br />It's one thing to build something in one's basement for themselves. It's entirely another thing to want to build something for sale to the mass market...and actually trying to make some profit at the same time.

[bbains]

$1500? That's out of line for any economy! I paid less to have complete cable runs retrofitted into my home.

[libertyforall1776]

How about a Display Port version, that works over WiFi?! ;-) So I can wirelessly display a MacBook Pro to a TV, without buying an AppleTV or Mac Mini...

[pretenderkc]

remember folks, there is cost of research and development. <br />then, it has to make profit on top of everything else. <br /> <br />just remember, there are a lot of cool technology never see the light of day not b/c it's technologically impossible but economically impossible. <br /> <br />just imagine HOLOGRAM or CLONING technology. <br />yes, we can make it happen..... but, is society willing to pay the price?

[monkeyfun14]

Holograms have been proven impossible..

[pretenderkc]

@Monkey... <br /> <br />you must have missed OBAMA election night. <br />CNN was the first to use Hologram via LIVE broadcast.

[Shaun822]

That was a cheap imitation of a hologram.

[mbenedict]

@pretenderkc: <br /><br />The 'hologram' you saw on election night was just a multi-camera trick, not an actual hologram:<br /><br />http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/05/tech-holograms.html<br /><br />"The CNN anchors were not really speaking to three-dimensional projected images, but rather empty space, Kreuzer said. The images were simply added to what viewers saw on their screens at home, in much the same way computer-generated special effects are added to movies."

[pretenderkc]

folks, hologram is as real as the oxygen you breathe. <br />just check your debit or credit card. <br />there's a hologram on the card. <br /> <br />check the new U.S. Passport. <br />it has hologram as well.

[monkeyfun14]

@pretender <br /> <br />Those foils on the card are not holograms. <br /> <br />Holograms is a 3d light object formed in the air. These have been proven to be impossible because laws of physics.

[Dalkorian]

hologram |?häl??gram; ?h?l?-|<br />noun<br />a three-dimensional image formed by the interference of light beams from a laser or other coherent light source.<br />? a photograph of an interference pattern that, when suitably illuminated, produces a three-dimensional image.<br /><br />With that dictionary definition, how many of us are expecting "holograms" to be something like what you'd encounter on the holodeck of the Enterprise? I swear I saw holograms at Disneyland (they were ghosts, I think it was the Haunted House?) when I was a child and that was DECADES ago.

[instybob]

I can buy cable and hire a handyman to crwal in my attic and run them for less than $300. I can't imagine who their intended market was. I'll bet the quality ************ too (maybe the real reason for dumping it).

[cnet_really_sucks]

Oh no, not that "aesthetic fetish" thing again. What is wrong with cables? Why does everything have to look so "clean"? Why does it need to look so freakin clinical like all those over-styled Apple devices? Just change your perception of what bothers your eye. It's much cheaper and billions of times more easy to manage and maintain.<br /><br />Do you mind seeing plumbing fixtures in your house? What about lugnuts on car wheels? Or that string hanging from the attic stairs? Do you hide that support pipe or the cords hanging from your ceiling fan? <br /><br />Why not flush mount all your artwork and hide those unsightly picture frames. And let's not stop there, let's kill the door knobs and all that grotesque hardware and hinge bits that our eyes are forced to endure. Yeah, we can call it the iPort instead of a door. That makes it much better, yeah.....<br /><br />I guess it is the iEgo that will fix the economy after all. Gotta have everything sleek and clean. <br /><br />All these people that want everything behind the walls deserve the price they have to pay in money, labor and maintenance.

[ssbibliophile]

Um, if you really think a bunch of tangle up cables hanging down your wall and well-designed, quality picture frame are basically the same thing, then I think i see the problem. Let's go the other way: "just change the perception of what bothers your eye" so that trash laying in your living room looks fine. And beer bottles in the yard, discarded plastic cases from the giant cables hanging all over your walls littering the floor. How about a bright orange couch with purple polka dots next to a lime green recliner and dark blue and grey floor carpet sitting on unpolished concrete? Shall we all just train our eye to think that is all fine? <br /> <br />Of course anything can be carred too far, including the "clean" look. But to claim it's all just an "aesthetic fetish" is silly.

[atgrammer]

I'm supprised anyone would ever buy that in any economic condition. But then again, a fool and his money...

[make_or_break]

I dunno...I could see home theater installations utilizing something like this, particularly if it's undesirable to have the source equipment near the monitor itself, and running concealed cables becomes an even MORE expensive option if the space is already finished. Definitely a niche market that isn't necessary for most consumers, but it could do well enough. Trouble is, that sort of home theater install is a lot fewer and far between in these tougher days.

[paulimusmaximus]

Even if you get rid of the HDMI cords, I still have a component cable, and at bare minimum the power cord going to the tv.

[make_or_break]

True, but I suspect that this item wasn't going to be marketed to the average consumer.

[ThatDuckGuy]

Good they cut their losses now. Smart move I believe.