OnLive Founder Claims "Impossible" Wireless Breakthrough

[Ironic]

-snip-

Emmm why not it'll help cut cost by reducing the amount of cell towers, which reduces maintenance cost while still charging the public at the same or higher price. People still use data plans and do you really think companies will reduce their prices because operating costs are lower?

You'd THINK it's great and economic, but did you considr the costs for REMOVING the antennas?
Replacing them with a small router box is cheap, but removing all of the antennas from the roofs of buildings breaks contracts and requires money.

However revolutionary the technology is, Iron has a point. The contracts with the companies that make/relpace/maintain those boxes will have to be fulfilled, so depending on how long those are, It would still probably take 2-5 years for the consumer to see any benefit. You might see a partial rollout as a compliment to current systems though, as a trial maybe. Each mobile and internet company wants an advantage, so I wouldn't be surprised if they offered this as a premium service on top of their old.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Perpetual energy machines.

That limit is not something you break. I'll remain skeptical, but even if they did discover something allowing communication like they describe, it's pretty fucking unlikely to be through something that invalidates the Shannon-Hartley theorem.

 

[saregos]

Ok... Reading the claims, there's absolutely nothing extraordinary about the patent as it stands. And it's certainly not capable of breaking Shannon's Law.

So... the guy either 1) doesn't understand the patent, or 2) is lying.

 

[gbemery]

Oh great now after they get this setup imagine how much we will hear on the news about this being the next big cancer worry. :/

 

[craddoke]

Is it just me or does this sound a little like a Tesla claim?

The same exact analogy popped into my head, too.

And did Tesla not do some awesome stuff? I think an AC generator was once said to be impossible.

There's no question that Tesla was awesome - partly because he always dreamed bigger than he could possibly deliver. Sometimes, though, he seemed to think that stating something was possible was the same as proving it so. This seems very similar.

 

[Bobbity]

Really hoping that this is legitimate, even if my provider would put off switching to it for decades so as to milk every last dollar from me.

 

[DracoSuave]

Perpetual energy machines.

That limit is not something you break. I'll remain skeptical, but even if they did discover something allowing communication like they describe, it's pretty fucking unlikely to be through something that invalidates the Shannon-Hartley theorem.

A thousand people talking on a thousand celphones "break" Shannon's Law all the time.

Increased number of signals = increased bandwidth.

I'm not a skeptic of whether the technology can work; it's so obvious a solution that I'm surprised it doesn't exist yet.

 

[aashell13]

to say that he broke the laws of physics is kinda deceptive. He probably just found some way to bypass one or more of the assumptions behind the original analysis. that kind of thing happens fairly often in science and engineering. assuming this is all true, of course.

 

[Plurralbles]

all well and good but telecom companies will still overcharge us and only give us 1% of its potential with a tiny cap.

 

[DracoSuave]

to say that he broke the laws of physics is kinda deceptive. He probably just found some way to bypass one or more of the assumptions behind the original analysis. that kind of thing happens fairly often in science and engineering. assuming this is all true, of course.

Hense why terms like "Broke" and "violated" and such are in "quotation marks."

In this case, it indicates the word in question isn't literal, but "literal."

 

[Twilight_guy]

Judging from the name of thing its probably not violate the laws of physics so much as working around it. It sounds like he wants to use a distributed system where you use more tech working in tandem so that each working at max capacity works together to achieve results that go over max capacity for a single unit. Its basically how a multicore processor goes faster then any single core could. Now that's just me taking a stab at it but it sounds a bit more reasonable then "he done broke physics".

 

[Akisa]

-snip-

Emmm why not it'll help cut cost by reducing the amount of cell towers, which reduces maintenance cost while still charging the public at the same or higher price. People still use data plans and do you really think companies will reduce their prices because operating costs are lower?

You'd THINK it's great and economic, but did you considr the costs for REMOVING the antennas?
Replacing them with a small router box is cheap, but removing all of the antennas from the roofs of buildings breaks contracts and requires money.

Those contracts usually have a time period so it could be a phasing out program. It doesn't have to be right away. You could also have companies who weren't into mobile service (like ISP) to break into the market, kind of like phone companies have entered into the subscription tv service.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I will be following this with interest. If this actually works, which, hey, I think we're all hoping for, then this will be amazing. And will welcome us to the future.

 

[broli4000]

yes i was surprised by OnLive too, until i found out you need really good internet and living in a good USA city to have a good reception. OnLive right now is the equivalent of high class restaurants. Sure, theyre good and worth it, but only if you live in the big city where they are. Otherwise, taking a hundred mile trip just to eat filet mignon at 100 dollars isnt worth it. and neither is OnLive.

I have OnLive and they have had their connection issues when they first started (the occasional timeouts and lag). At this point though, its really easy to connect and play at a fairly fast rate. I have cable internet, but its Comcast and has download speeds as fast as 8MBPS (at 2AM when no one is on) and as slow as 1-2MBPS (normally) and OnLive works just fine for me. Now, is this for super competitive gamers that are used to perfect connections and crazy smooth frame rates?.... No, but it hasn't been advertised as that either.

They offer gaming to people on a budget and more casual gamers in a much better package than buying a $60 game to only beat it in 2 days. Again, they are still working out the kinks, but it is a really interesting service that if expanded upon (a game developed just for OnLive, with lifelike graphics, more titles, etc.) could really make some waves in the industry and take it to another level.

true, but casual gamers already have their games almost for free and you will never need a super computer to play it. the market OnLive is aiming for doesnt exist.maybe in 10 years, when everyone has good internet connection, then theyll have good market potential. right now, no one will waste money on it to get shitty lag in multiplayer or just to get singleplayer games at a slightly cheaper price, but still you gotta pay for the service.

See, I think they are going for the medium gamers. The people tired of trying to play BlackOps against 10 year olds with too much time on their hands. You know, the average working American. The ones that grew up with the Nintendo, Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo, but don't have the time or money to plunk down on $60 games and $200-$400+ consoles. While I have been fortunate enough to own a 360, a lot of people my age (mid 20s) have to choose between eating/paying rent and playing video games, which is perfect for a service like Onlive.

In addition, I have really no lag during any of my games. Its a pretty smooth gameplay, minus a few hiccups that come from my crap connection, not from OnLive. Statistically, the US actually has one of the slower internet connection speed averages, where other countries easily double and triple our speeds.

I also have yet to pay for the service itself, just for the games that I want to "rent" or "buy". I believe that was their initial plan, to have everyone pay something like $5.99 for the service and then pay for the games, but that was dropped shortly after it started. Now they have a subscription service for like $9.99 a month, you get to play any game as long as you want. Or you can just buy a 1-2 day "Playpass" for a specific game at like $2.99 or you can buy the game outright for anywhere between $9.99 - $49.99 (depending on how new it is).

OnLive is still trying to find its niche market. But I think they have decided to settle on the average 20-30 year old American that wants to get back into gaming without the ridiculous expense. In a few years, they will be able to expand out a little further to other markets as they get better content.

Just calling their service "filet mignon 100 miles away" is the complete opposite of what they are actually doing. They are bringing larger, more hardware intensive games to consumers with mid level PCs (single core, 1GB RAM, lower level video card... typical HP and Dell buyers from a few years ago). Hell the whole thing works on a wireless network as well with few to no interruptions.

 

[Buizel91]

So... if this is true...Wi-Fi would be everywhere?

HURRAY! now my iPod touch can connect to the internet when i'm on the move xD

I hope this happens, really i do!

 

[Alphalpha]

If this isn't bs this is more proof that Physics/Math need to take a lesson from Chemistry & Biology.

Physics observes an action/force and before they even know what causes the action they have a new law.

Bio still claims the idea of living tissue utilizing dna & cells as theory instead of law.

Chemistry's entire basis, that atoms exist is still "theory."

The problem here is that the term law is so loosely bandied about by physicists that real science is either discouraged (because it must be impossible the law says so) or has to constantly redefine "laws."

Why do you include Math in this statement? Math is an internally consistent system of laws that is connected to the physical world only through other real-world systems use of Math to represent themselves.

Every theorem added to Math is first rigorously proven using theorems that have been rigorously proven using theorems that have been rigorously proven all the way down to the fundamentals of Mathematics. The fact that Math has no reliance on anything outside of itself allows these proofs to be forever valid, as there are no unknown factors to be later discovered.

Physics uses Math to describe itself, but Physics is not Math.

 

[GeorgW]

Sounds interesting. I never really put much weight in the laws of physics, they're all a bunch of nay sayers. That said however, I don't really put much stock in "the founder of OnLive."

 

[Vonnis]

That's nice and all, but the problem isn't so much developing the technology; it's getting that technology to the consumer without heavily inflated prices for "exclusive premium speed!".

 

[Sterling|D-Reaver]

"there is still the problem of the cell phone business relying entirely on the ignorance of the average person to leverage insane profits."

Yeah and not just cell phones, internet too, just look at fiber optics for an example of that (at least in the USA.) Don't know how much its limited elsewhere. Having only one provider is a big part of the problem too.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Would be sweet. Now hurry up and break some status quo.