Samsung looks to make wireless phones more… wireless

News

Somewhere over the rainbow in a land far away, wireless phones will actually be wireless. We’re not just talking about cellular voice and data here of course, we’re talking about handsets that can communicate, move data, sync and be charged all without the need for a single external wired connection. We still have a ways to go before technologies such as inductive charging and higher-speed data transfer standards are a commonplace, but Samsung has just announced a major step towards that reality with the advent of Wireless USB. By way of new System-on-a-Chip (SoC) technology, Samsung claims W-USB will allow portable devices such as mobile handsets and digital cameras to connect wirelessly using an interface that is nearly identical to a wired USB connection. Dr. Yiwan Wong, vice president, System LSI Division at Samsung is heading up the group responsible for the breakthrough and had this to say:

Connected consumer electronic products are the next step in enabling anytime, anywhere access to information and services. One of the keys to wireless connectivity is W-USB technology. While W-USB technology is just beginning to ramp up, its application will soon increase with the consumer electronic and mobile phone markets’ demand for wireless connectivity technology and UWB’s fast download speeds.

The SoC itself is comprised of a built-in ARM core, a UWB physical layer, a memory controller and a memory component. It operates in the 3.1~10.6 GHz-band range and as far as numbers go, we’re looking at speeds of 480 Mbps. Real world tests have shown actual transfer speeds of 120 Mbps which is hardly a rate to be scoffed at and security hounds will be happy to know Samsung employs 128 bit AES encryption to thwart prowlers. Long story short, W-USB can’t happen soon enough.

[Via DailyTech]

Read

11 Comments
  • Kimberly

    Sounds promising .
    Besides its impressive performance itd definitely help not having to worry about having a wad of wires cluttering your desk counter top . Or losing them for that matter .

  • Kimberly

    *edit* desk OR countertop I mean .

  • Singh Paul

    I thought this already existed and was called “Bluetooth”…

    SP

  • Jeremiah

    ^^ That’s exactly what I thought too!

  • http://blog.gurski.org emag

    Bluetooth is s-l-o-w though. What I really want is an open well-documented standard protocol for syncing everything, including apps. Wired or wireless, I don’t care…

  • aleis

    um, they said it could charge. bluetooth cannot charge.

    “can communicate, move data, sync and be CHARGED ”

    an o yeah, BRING IT TO THE OMNIA!!! :)

  • Kimberly

    @emag

    Exactly !

    Bluetooth tends to be totally unreliable also .

  • jayrodathome

    It cannot charge. They would like to be able to in the future. Bluetooth sucks for days transfer. Slow and unreliable. This sounds awesome.

  • http://www.k5live.com likeabite

    Yea bluetooth definitely cannot charge, which is what makes this so promising. It would be a lifesaver for travellers and battery guzzler phones. And last I checked you didn’t need to 0000 pin for usb ;)

  • Valiantineus

    I know it’s been awhile since anyone has posted here but I just have to add a couple things.

    *W-USB in it’s initial form WILL NOT be able to charge devices wirelessly. Wireless charging is currently being researched but will not be available for several years at best. It uses a form of projected electromagnetic induction and not only currently requires a very significant amount of energy to work, but because of powerful magnetic field it generates, much progress will have to be made to keep the field from interfering with other electronic devices. Also, I would imagine that the FCC will want to do much research concerning possible adverse affects on the human body due to prolonged exposure to strong magnetic fields.

    *As for the difference between W-USB and Bluetooth being speed and reliability, that is irrelevant considering that BT 3.0 is in the works and promises significant improvements in both of those areas.

    *As for why this is ACTUALLY different from BT, I am curious of the answer to that as well. I can only assume that it may be that BT is limited by it’s need for certain “profiles” to perform different functions, whereas to me (and I’m no expert) USB technology seems to generally “just work” with most hardware. But that is just speculation.

    What do you say BG? Can you help us out here? Why is this any better than BT 3.0?

  • Valiantineus

    ^Or Zach since you are the one that wrote this article… my bad.

blog comments powered by Disqus