4 ms·
It isn't for static content (songs/movies), but for active content it is. 5G should effectively redefine what streaming really is.
by wideasleep1 7y ago
It isn't for static content (songs/movies), but for active content it is. 5G should effectively redefine what streaming really is.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoWhat does this mean? Multiplayer video games? Video calls? Communal karaoke? I can see how all of these things might benefit from 5G's higher bandwidth and lower latency, but they should also be more than possible right now. So if there's some untapped audience for a communal online karaoke app, I really don't think 4G networks are what's holding them back. This type of thing is where I get pretty frustrated with 5G talk. It's a lot easier to come up with ideas than it is to build them, so if we can't even come up with concrete ideas, I don't think 5G networks are going to make the difference. All of the proposals I see either don't make any sense under scrutiny (live streamed AR), or could easily be accomplished in another way (smart light bulbs). Faster mobile data is great. I'm just not expecting it to transform society.
- wideasleep1 7y agoI think 'streaming' is a poor selling point, because it is already done efficiently, and will simply be made more efficient by faster networks offloading static content to cache/flash, as in Netflix/song downloads are presently. We just wouldn't need to call them 'downloads' anymore, just cached content. There are use cases where a centralized database and processors would need interaction to complete the experience, such as online gaming/VR/AR..but I wouldn't call that 'streaming'. These definition are mutable, like you don't 'dial' a number to make a call. I remember when the phones transitioned from dial to button, and thought 'what a time-saver'!