Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

New Sharp AQUOS Cordless LCD TVs 110

Posted by CowboyNeal from the easy-furniture-rearranging dept.
i4u writes "I4U reports about Sharp introducing AQUOS a new line of cordless LCD TV Sets. Sony introduced beginning of April the cordless Sony Vega TV series. Now Sharp introduces their line of cordless TV Sets. The Sharp AQUOS LC-15L1 is a 15" LCD TV set that has no wires. The display is powered by a built-in lithium battery. The AV signal is transmitted wirelessly from the base station that contains the tuner. The AV signal is transmitted over 2.4Ghz. The cordless Sony Vega TV series use 5GHz to avoid interference, so Sharp is a bit behind here. The AQUOS LC-15L1 will retail for about 175,000 yen starting May 1st in Japan." These look pretty cool, but of course the battery life and/or battery pricing could be an issue. I guess it depends on how important it is to be able to carry your TV from room to room.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Sharp AQUOS Cordless LCD TVs More

New Sharp AQUOS Cordless LCD TVs

Comments Filter:

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazholio ( 314843 ) <[slashdot] [at] [lexal.net]> on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:32AM (#5764399) Homepage
    Can anyone explain to me why 2.4GHz is so popular? Phones use it, 802.11b uses it, and many devices, such as microwaves interfere with it. Do people not realize that the more devices that use it, the less useful/reliable it will be? Is there something special about it that's attractive to developers? Is it because it's a non-regulated frequency? IS it even a non-regulated frequency?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbenderNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:42AM (#5764427)
      Yes, it is because it is - along with 5 Ghz and a couple of more frequencies - unregulated (or minimally regulated [gigaant.com] for commercial and scientific use. 5 Ghz, according to this excellent article [dansdata.com] on Dan's Data [dansdata.com] is "inherently even less able to deal with propagation obstacles than 2.4GHz".

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

        by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbenderNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:47AM (#5764443)
        Just to add to what I said, since in the end it sounded as if I was implying that 2.4 GHz is always superior to 5 GHZ:

        2.4 GHz transmission does, indeed, propagate better than 5 GHz, if it wasn't for the considerable existing sources of 2.4 GHz radiation - lots and lots of stuff uses 2.4, as the original poster pointed out, including microwave ovens. So if you're in a interference rich environment, 5 GHz might work better than 2.4 GHz. This is all covered in the article I linked to, incidently.

    • WHY? Because WLAN as we know is meant to fail as do many technologies in America due to hype. There more reliable technologies around but no money to create the infrastructure needed to support the technology. Most companies are cashing in on the mature R&D of 2.4GHz and using those pre-built components to develop devices more rapidly to sell to the consumer just make sense.

  • Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:33AM (#5764401) Homepage
    I'm all for wireless this and wireless that, but am i the only one who sees absolutely no point to this? I cant imagine the batteries lasting for very long also what about all the cables besides power you plug into your tv, youd have to set those up wirelesly too. DVD, reciever, even just the cable. I i just cant see much of a market for large batery operated tvs.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)

      by jwjcmw ( 552089 )
      .5 seconds left in the NCAA final. UNC is up by one and Duke has the ball. God, I have to pee. It sure would be great if the TV was wireless.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by James_Duncan8181 ( 588316 )
        Uh? You can't hold a piss for 0.5 of a second?

        That's just messed up.

      • You mean it isnt? [techtv.com]
      • Consider TiVo - for those moments when you wish you had a time machine for your television. Now you do.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Or you could hit pause on a Tivo and spend the $1000 you saved on a bigger TV or something.

        Now, I can see a few uses for a wireless TV (being able to stick the tuner in one room and the screen + AC adapter in a room without a cable jack would be very useful), but bringing it with you to the bathroom so you don't miss 30 seconds of a game isn't one of the more practical ones, especially with the current price (roughly $1500USD and $2000USD). Heck, there's even cheaper ways to do the tuner-in-another-room t
      • And, you know, this could do wonderful things for TV broadcasting. The only point of commercials is a smoking/bathroom/food/beverage break, but now that TVs are portable, commercials can be eliminated once and for all. Right?

        *cough* Right?

        Shit.
      • .5 seconds left in the NCAA final. UNC is up by one and Duke has the ball.

        and then the batteries die...
    • I kinda like the idea, even if you have to plug in the TV to conserve battery life, it does mean you can watch cable, sattelite, digitial cable, DVDs, or even feeds from your computer via a media center, anywhere in your house.

      When I go to Best Buy and see the 10-12 different pocket and tiny portable TVs, I always think, "Why bother, all I could receive is 3-4 snowy local channels".

    • The idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:57AM (#5764484)
      ...is to eventually reduce the cables and setup required. We will soon have buttonless TV's and displays, that auto-configure, and except for a few controls on a remote or keyboard, they will not need any interaction to operate properly.

      This brings us full circle, back to when the first displays had nothing but an on switch.
      • This brings us full circle, back to when the first displays had nothing but an on switch.

        Actually, the first displays were old-style tektronix analog oscilloscopes. Have you ever seen one of those? I have one on my desk right now.....it has 1..2..3...4.....35 buttons, knobs, or switches on the front. It would take the average joe a few minutes just to find the power switch. (Not that I don't think they're great pieces of equipment, at least for their time.)

        I'm not sure which old-school display you'
        • Try any electronic's manufacturer's product history exhibit. You'll find plenty of one button examples. I only have to take a short walk across the campus. Some of them are so basic it makes you wonder how they ever found a market.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, I'd like this product. I'm sure there will be a wallwart power supply that will be easy to unplug and carry with the screen. There are times when we would like to watch TV in a different room - right now, we either schlep the big box or buy another TV. If you follow the link to the Sony Japanese page, it looks like there are several screens ranging up to 23".

      Remember before 802.11? Who the hell wants to carry their computer around? Or, from an earlier age, "who the hell wants to hear actors

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bigfatlamer ( 149907 )
      Actually, the receiver is the base unit. I assume (based on no actual knowledge...that's what assumptions are after all) that you'd just plug all that stuff (DVD, cable, VCR...remember those?) into the base station which would then transmit through the base unit/receiver to the screen.

      Of course, this in no way helps explain the usefulness of this. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

      BFL
    • I'm not up on the latest on fuel cell technology, but what's the potential for using fuel cells to power stuff like plasma displays?

      Or, as a variation of the "I'm getting fried by all this wireless" theme, how about any wireless means of recharging batteries? I mean, futurists like to talk about huge solar collectors out in space that would beam the electricity they generate to an earth-bound station that would pump it into the power grid -- is there any similar sort of technology that has promise on a s
      • I'm not super up to date, but there is one micro fuel cell strategy that probably won't work for this. I for the cell phone fuel cells, the idea was that the fuel cell would trickle charge the battery, and the phone would run off the battery. So for people that are always talking on the phone the battery would still eventually run out. But maybe they have worked past that and can run straight off of the fuel cell now...
      • They have a wireless means of charging batteries, sort of. It's called inductive charging, and works much like a transformer (which has no physical contact between the input and output). The idea is that you put a big coil of wire (big meaning lots of twists, not large) in the device, and another big coil of wire nearby, and you run current through the second one and current flows in the first one. Of course, now your device has to be in one particular place, but you don't need a plug or anything, and you d
      • I've always thought that wireless battery recharge would be a cool thing, but I don't think that the technology we have for SPSs [freemars.org] would be very palatable for in-home use. The two base technologies are laser (requires line-of-sight) and microwave (incidentally, in the 2.4 GHz range). AFAIK, the energy required for a microwave signal, emmanating from the center of your house, to charge a battery in your laptop would be enough to squelch wireless networks for several blocks and probably have questionable heal
      • Wasn't Nikola Tesla working on wireless power? I'm pretty sure it had something to do with using microwaves to transmit power
    • All the other wires are connected to a base station.

      Its for wall mounting, not portability.

  • Price (Score:5, Troll)

    by dirkdidit ( 550955 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:34AM (#5764403) Homepage
    175,000 yen is about $1,460 US. For that price you could go pick up a laptop with a 15" screen and a USB TV Tuner and you'd probably still have money to spare.

    Seems to me that this is the kind of technology that we'll see in the lavish mansions of movie stars and not in the homes of everyday people. (damn it!)

    • Re:Price (Score:3, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      I'm sure it's happened before, but that's the first time I've seen a +5, Troll. Heh.
    • You must live in some alternate universe, where people use weird concepts like "common sense" and "reasonable value". Circuit City is selling a similar wired TV for $1K [circuitcity.com]. And that's a clearance sale! Larger flat-panel TVs go for as much as $5K. One doesn't see a lot of movie stars at Circuit City.

      Who spends that kind of money for stuff like this? Presumably the same folk who spend $50K for SUVs loaded with off-road features they'll never use.

    • I don't see how this is so much of a troll, but the first year or two a technology is always the most expensive. Once they find that there is real demand and how to make them less expensively, they go down.

      The first DVD players started out in the $1000-$2000 range, now one can get them starting at $50. I think the first VHS deck sold in the US started at $1500, now you can find better ones for $50. The first HD D-Theater D-VHS deck started out at $2000 but now can be had for $700 one year later.

      I really
    • I have been searching far and wide for a way to get decent video into my laptop...the USB tuners have a very low picture quality, because USB 1.1 doesn't have a high enough bandwidth for the video (it has to be compressed considerably). So far, I've found one [prolink.com.tw] USB 2.0 tuner, but I heard that it still doesn't compare to any PCI model, or for that matter, an actual television. And, I can probably forget getting HDTV into my laptop....help me if you know how !
    • I probably make less money than you, and I bought a 27" FD Wega, cost me $1000CDN (About 600US?). That was for a low end Wega too, btw.

      Had I more money at the time i would have bought LCD or bigscreen projection.
      • Keep in mind that sony has to disntint levels of Wega sets. the cheap ones(the one you got) and the really expensive ones. There is a significant difference in the quality between these two types. I can afford the cheap one, but my eyes just might mutiny from the horrible picture, and I cant afford the really nice units. REally tho for the price of the high end units a project is a better value.
    • Just over $1800...

      One (1) 17" Apple iMac, 1gHz w/SuperDrive... $1599.00 (http://www.macconnection.com)
      One (1) EyeTV USB TV Tuner/PVR... $188.00 (http://shopping.yahoo.com)
      One (1) Keystone Digital Media IR Remote... $41.00 (http://shopping.yahoo.com)

      One (1) gorgeous TV/PVR/DVD Playing/Burning media center that isn't based on Microsloth and should therefore operate beautifully for many years to come... about $1,828.00

      The ability to watch, record and enjoy my own "Happy Days" DVD's... Priceless.
  • Using the LCD on a camera cuts the battery life by more than half and that is a tiny LCD. I can't imagine what a big LCD screen would do. Though it would be cool just walking around with a high quality TV in your hands. At least it beats those old portable 3" b/w CRT tvs.

    • Re:Not feasible (Score:3, Informative)

      by moonbender ( 547943 )
      Ever heard of laptops? A laptop is a portable computer, including an LCD as a video output device. Last I heard, they manage an uptime of two to three hourse, more in some cases - and keep in mind, they need to power other components as well, such as the CPU and keep the hard drive spinning. ;)

      I apologise for my sarcasm, but obviously this is feasible, since it has been done before countless times. :) I don't know how much battery time is in such a TV, but with a normal laptop battery, 4 hours seem complet

  • what a great idea! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ansleybean ( 618941 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:38AM (#5764417) Homepage
    a really expensive tv that needs batteries and is easy to walk off with! i've been waiting for this for a long time now.
  • "I4U reports about Sharp introducing AQUOS a new line of cordless LCD TV Sets. Sony introduced beginning of April the cordless Sony Vega TV series. Now Sharp introduces their line of cordless TV Sets. The Sharp AQUOS LC-15L1 is a 15" LCD TV set that has no wires."

    Ahhh, Slashdot, always pioneering new technology. Slashdot has introduced the just announced, new, previously unknown DupeInStoryText technology! It has duplicates in the story text. You'll note each story text will now contain text similar t

  • makes looting fun (Score:4, Funny)

    by DoomDoom ( 452574 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:47AM (#5764442)
    so when I am running outta that store that we just looted, I could also be watching the cops chasing me on live TV.

  • Now, I'm as much a tech geek like the next slashdotter, but I don't understand why being able to schlepp your TV around would be such a big deal. When's the last time any of you felt the need to move your 21 incher to the bathroom... mmmh, maybe while I take a bath - at least I wouldn't get electrocuted again that way - LOL.
    Anyway, I'm much more looking forward to that 802.11b equipped DivX/DVD player - now THAT's something useful. Anhone any clue when that thing is making it into the U.S.?
    • "Now, I'm as much a tech geek like the next slashdotter, but I don't understand why being able to schlepp your TV around would be such a big deal."

      I have a Replay TV that is in the living room. It's not going anywhere. I also have a gf and her mother that likes to watch American Idol in the living room. I'd love to be able to route my ReplayTV to a semi-portable device and set it up in another room. Recently I filled out a survey form for them where they asked if I'd like an RF remote. That'd be ev

  • When the TV licensing police comes... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Pivot ( 4465 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:53AM (#5764468)
    - it will be very handy to just grab the telly, turn it off and place it behind the door..

  • not Vega, Wega. With a dubya (Score:4, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:55AM (#5764472) Homepage Journal
    Not Vega, Wega [sonystyle.com]. I know a lot of people screw that up, but I how can you trust a review site that doesn't even get the name of the product right?
    • I know, a lot of people screw it up, and you're one of them. It's VEGA, the "V" has a shadow with a silhouette. As another poster pointed out, the name originated from the german form of "Wega", which is still pronounced "Vega". The shadowed "V" is used in the manuals as well and is a Registered trademark.. see the little "r" after the name on the website you quoted? They wouldn't need to do that if it was just merely "Wega". I bought a "Wega" tv when they first came out about 3-4 years ago when they fi
    • I don't see how this alone can hurt the review credibility, that's much like dissing a book written by a Brit because they spell a particular metal aluminium or how they spell colour.

      Sony's Wega line is named after the star. While the name is pronounced "vega" it is also spelled "wega".
      • I don't see how this alone can hurt the review credibility, that's much like dissing a book written by a Brit because they spell a particular metal aluminium or how they spell colour.

        Sony's Wega line is named after the star. While the name is pronounced "vega" it is also spelled "wega".

        We're not listening to the review, we're watching it. If the name of the product reviewed isn't even accurate, how much of the rest of the review can we trust?

  • Wireless TV! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @11:57AM (#5764486) Homepage Journal
    TV...over the air...no wires! Who would have thought it was possible? This will change everything!
  • Cordless ?, so how/where do I plug it in to the mains ?.

  • dupe? of the early 90's? (Score:3, Funny)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @12:02PM (#5764502) Journal
    I remember back in the day I with the likes of Sony or Casio, they all had handheld (and bigger if you wanted) portable tv's, we could take pretty much anywhere in the country and always get a decent amount of channels. So maybe there's a new market for this stuff? I better throw mines on ebay quick, make some good $$$.

  • UK TV License Quirks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lewiz ( 33370 )
    I don't know if there is anybody living in the UK reading this, but I believe there to be a quirk in television license rules. Specifically, devices that are not powered by mains (e.g. by battery, even if they are charged from mains -- so long as you don't watch and charge at the same time, I guess) are exempt from the requirement of a television license.

    A device like this could save some people quite a bit of cash, I should imagine ;)
    • " I don't know if there is anybody living in the UK reading this, but I believe there to be a quirk in television license rules. Specifically, devices that are not powered by mains (e.g. by battery, even if they are charged from mains -- so long as you don't watch and charge at the same time, I guess) are exempt from the requirement of a television license."

      Unfortunately not true. From
      the tv licensing website [tvlicensing.co.uk]:

      (This is in the 'Do I need a licence?' -> 'students' section)

      "Your parents' licence will n
  • Why are these companies even bothering with 802.11a/b?

    There is a much better technology just around the corner in the form of UWB. There is a company by the name of "Xtreme Spectrum" that has already designed a chipset specifically for conveying A/V signals using UWB. As I understand it, these signals are not prone to degradation by multipath interference. However, penetration of UWB signals through walls will be limited due to FCC restrictions on allowable power limits of UWB signals. Here is a lin
    • You're assuming that just because something operates at 2.4GHz, it must be 802.11b, and you're quite wrong.

      The FCC regulates who can use what bits of the radio spectrum. Most pieces are allocated for things like radio broadcast, millitary use, amateur radio, GPS, etc.. There are a couple chunks, known as "part 15" bands, which are outlined in the rules for anyone to use, with a minimum of restrictions.

      There's a band in the 900MHz range, and a band in 2.4GHz, and they're both called ISM, which stands for I

  • Stick my head in the microwave oven. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19, 2003 @12:10PM (#5764534)
    Ok, I'm getting fried by a 5 GHz TV. I'm getting fried by my 2 GHz cordless phone. I'm getting fried by 400 MHz cordless headphones. I'm getting fried by my ATT Nokia cell phone. I'm getting fried by by 1.8 GHz Athlon. I'm getting zapped by my 803.11 ethernet. I'm getting broiled by my bluetooth. I'm being cooked by DirecTV satellite.

    Death by a thousand zaps. I think I'll stick my head in the microwave. It will be quicker.

  • so, this TV works by decoding radio waves sent from a base station, which works by decoding waves sent from the TV station. and to change the channel you have to walk back to the room with the base station?

    my brother had something like this about 15 years ago, but he could change the channel right on the TV itself...

    What exactly is the point of this??

    -duncan

  • Too bad I can't use one.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Myself ( 57572 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @12:32PM (#5764604) Journal
    Unless the cable company approves it. This would retransmit telecommunications service, and thus run afoul of Michigan's new law. [michiganlegislature.org]

    Actually it would be cool if your porn-loving neighbor got one of these, you could probably watch for free.

  • Big Question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bodrius ( 191265 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @12:38PM (#5764629) Homepage
    Can multiple monitors share the same base station?

    If yes, can multiple monitors share the base station the signal but still show different channels?

    If both answers are affirmative, I can see the use of this. You put the base station wherever you put all your A/V equipment, which can very well be in the basement, and then you put monitors wherever you want a TV.

    Otherwise, it seems like useless novelty to me.

    I mean, if you can't share base stations, I REALLY don't see the point of the wireless TV. It's not like the TV wiring is a problem in any modern house, and it's not like connecting the base station is that much less of a hassle than connecting the LCD screen in the first place.

    And let's face it, how many of us really need to put their TV on the ceiling?

    If you can share base stations but can only watch one channel/video at a time (I think this is the case) I can see some limited use outside of the consumer market: bars, crappy restaurants, airplanes, office-buildings... wherever you actually want to show the same video source on multiple screens in inconveniently located places.

    But as a consumer, I would find it a pain. "It would be like a sportsbar", I can hear a certain TV-ad character say.

    Really, we're not talking LAN cabling, which most modern houses don't have incorporated. We're talking TV antennas.

    How far do you have to go in a modern house to get to a TV outlet?

    • Re:Big Question (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Cloud 9 ( 42467 )
      How far do you have to go in a modern house to get to a TV outlet?

      My house was built in the '70s. There wasn't a single cable tv outlet installed when it was built. When cable TV came around, holes had to be drilled in the exterior walls, and cable had to be dropped from the ceiling.

      Then, when digital came out, more holes had to be drilled in the house, and more cable ran in order to get both cable internet and digital cable TV.

      I'd say non-wired houses are more common than you think.

  • According to this [i4u.com] link in the article, the Sharp set is powered by an lithium ion battery. This link [i4u.com] for the Sony set makes no mention of a battery, which leads me to believe that one would still need an outlet to power the display.

    According to this [www.sony.jp] page, Sony will be selling a black 17" widescreen wireless TV beginning May 10th for 210,000 yen ($1,752) and a silver 15" 4:3 aspect ratio model beginning June 1st for 165,000 yen ($1,377). But it does not appear that they are selling any wireless TVs yet
  • If you speak Japanese! Do Japanese people even read /. ?
  • I can see how it would be cool to have the display hang on the wall or sit in the middle of the room with no wires. OTOH, but it seems that the 2.4 GHZ spectrum is getting quite crowded. I suspect interference would be a problem, especially in densely populated areas. It seem to me that it would make much more sense to build such a unit with a single power/signal/sound cord. If there were no controls on the unit itself, i.e. the remote was the only controller, the form fact large maintained, without the

  • Contract (Score:4, Funny)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @02:10PM (#5764964) Homepage
    I guess it depends on how important it is to be able to carry your TV from room to room.

    Finaly a way to avoid breaking my contract to watch commercials when I go to the kitchen or bathroom!

    -
  • Turn on microwave oven, no watchy watchy TV.
    Neighbor turn on microwave oven, no watchy watchy TV.

    2.4ghz bad..


  • Now all I have to do is get an apartment next to a pr0n fiend and hook up my 2.4Ghz receiver to get free pr0n.
  • Is this set DMCA compliant? Is it really OK to retransmit copyrighted material from the base station to the set?

    And if it's transmitting, does this mean that, similar to corless phones, you could tune in and watch what your neighbor is watching? I suppose you won't have to climb up the pole or get a pirate card for free HBO anymore.

  • a practical use (Score:3, Funny)

    by jea6 ( 117959 ) on Saturday April 19, 2003 @05:27PM (#5765749)
    finally, a tv i can easily take to the bathroom when i wnt to take a long, uh ... bath.
  • Why hack my computer when you can simply park in front of my house in a non-descrip unmarked van, sniff my wireless keyboard, my wireless mouse, and now watch everything through my wireless LCD.
  • I ain't carrying around a TV that costs that much, especially into the kitchen. Whoops! Dropped that knife right on the LCD :O
  • Last time I tries the cordless power thing it fired my city. (SC2k)

    Ed
  • Many people have said, "I don't see the point." The point is that you could have a TV hanging on the wall like a picture (maybe even framed) without wires running to it. To do this cleanly with wires you would have to cut a hole in the wall and snake some wires behind the wall board. Not all that fun for most normal consumers!

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close