Chilly forecast for wireless HD video

A number of companies said earlier this year that they were working on wireless high-definition video products. Unfortunately, as shoppers head into the holiday season, few of those companies have managed to deliver.

Samsung, Philips, and Sanyo were among those announcing wireless high-definition video products at the Consumer Electronics Show in January. But of the three major manufacturers, only Samsung has released one to market--its 50- and 58-inch wireless plasma television started selling in retail just two weeks ago.

The Philips Wireless HDMI (high-definition multimedia interface) kit, a replacement for running high-definition to a TV without cables originally announced for mid-year, is delayed until next year, and Sanyo's wireless projector is now on track for the first quarter of 2008.

Philips declined to be specific about the reason for the postponement, and Sanyo could not be reached for comment on when the projector will be available.

So why the holdup? It can be tricky to send high-def video wirelessly at resolutions of 720p and 1080p at fast speeds and not lose the crispness or color quality. And there's always a learning curve involved when bringing a new technology to market. Both the Philips and Sanyo products are making use of different, unused portions of the radio spectrum, neither of which can be considered tried-and-true technologies in the consumer space. Samsung's TV, on the other hand, uses an accepted standard--802.11n Wi-Fi.

Though Samsung has at least been able to release its wireless video product using Wi-Fi, it's still unclear what the dominant wireless video delivery method will be. Right now, there's not a single industry-recognized standard for how to feed high-definition video between devices around the home. Not yet, anyway.

To be fair, it's not like this industry isn't known for getting a bit ahead of itself. But the lack of an agreed-upon standard is the same roadblock that bedevils most every major new content delivery method in the CE marketplace today. This creates uncertainty for other companies that hope to build wireless video products. Without a settled standard, manufacturers could be wary of picking the wrong one, which could mean they don't build a product at all, or severely delay the product's release.

A schizophrenic message
The sheer variety of delivery choices also sends a very schizophrenic message to consumers. They may find themselves wondering whether a wireless Samsung TV will work seamlessly with a TiVo, an Xbox, and a Sony digital video camera. And having to put up with the drama and uncertainty of yet another standards war over digital content is probably the last thing consumers want.

"Anytime you get that in this day and age consumers know to run the other way as fast as possible, as is evidenced by the Blu-ray (and) HD DVD fiasco," Gartner research vice president Van Baker said.

But that could all change this coming year. In an attempt to establish a single standard, some of the top-tier consumer electronics companies have gotten together under a consortium called WirelessHD. Members include LG Electronics, Matsushita (Panasonic), NEC, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, and chipmaker SiBeam. WirelessHD promises uncompressed video transmissions at speeds of 4 gigabits per second at a distance of 10 meters.

Having top-tier manufacturers in the consortium is one way to push the industry in a unified direction. And though the specification is complete, before it's official the WirelessHD group has to have the approval of the gatekeepers of digital content: Hollywood studios.

[devon.leslie]

There is a point...

While many people may disagree - I would actually go for this technology as it would allow me to send HD video from my Desktop PC to my television. A wireless option would eliminate the need for a more pricy 'media pc' or xbox360/ps3 console.

[ktmotox]

The Studios Are In Control

I'm not quite sure why the content producers are allowed to exert so much control in this area. Other businesses have a financial interest in consumer electronics as well.

"The studios demanded the standard ...use uncompressed transmission of content to preserve the quality of video,"

If it's the quality of the video that they are concerned with, then why not send the already compressed video data directly from the set-top-box or HD-DVD player to the television? The real reason is that the studios think that the high data rate of uncompressed video is harder to capture, record, and copy. This is why 1394 was shot down in favor of DVI/HDMI.

[GridUser]

Maybe I don't understand this technology completely but I might be interested in it. The way our home is set up, we can't bring a second coax into the bedroom and over to the opposite wall to connect to a TV. Therefore, I am told we can't have an HDTV setup in our bedroom. If this technology would be able to send an HDTV signal from a DirecTV box on our main floor to our bedroom on the second floor, I would find that a very desirable piece of hardware indeed.