6 ms·

This article is interesting and informative, but feels oddly synthetic. It follows the classic Quora spill-the-beans-and-predict-the-future format but has some

This article is interesting and informative, but feels oddly synthetic. It follows the classic Quora spill-the-beans-and-predict-the-future format but has some interesting quirks. The "How does UWB Work?" section has paragraphs lifted straight from the patent applications. Some sentences make no sense, ex: "the U1 chip along with the results of FaceID/TouchID system is stored in the Secure Enclave"; the typo at the end calling it 'A1 chip' before going into 'holographic crystal memory', plus the final sentence: "We will once again leave the Mainframe computer and become cloudless". I'd guess it is an elaborate promotion piece for the author and his companies. Nothing is free on the internet anymore.

tlb 7y ago
Every article is a promotion for the author and company it’s written by. No need to point this out on every article.
- kortilla 7y ago
  No, there is a difference between people that genuinely want to provide good information, expand knowledge, etc and people that are just using hype buzzwords to generate sales leads.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Then point that out instead, exclusively
    - stevenhuang 7y ago
      I believe that was the intent with "promotional piece".
- bduerst 7y ago
  Promoted Content is an industry term, not just a phrase. Publishers will subsidize themselves by accepting money from companies to write promotional articles, even without disclosing it. There's a difference between that and an author just writing an article because it's their day job.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dweekly 7y ago
"The Decawave DW1000 Radio IC [3] for example, can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth. It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." None of this makes sense as-written. It is either techno-blither or the author doesn't sufficiently explain "distance", "power", "speed", "better" or "accuracy".
- stagger87 7y ago
  The quote makes sense. He's comparing the ranging accuracy of UWB to other wireless protocols while also pointing out it's relatively high throughput and low power requirements. He's also comparing the latency of acquiring ranging information to that of GPS.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  That mostly makes sense to me, it's a chip that allows for both spatially locating other chips and communicating with them, supposedly with more bandwidth and further range than WiFi or Bluetooth, while requiring lower power: https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/ https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - teppifk 7y ago
    I agree with the gp, the quote makes little sense. It seems to take a bunch of facts from the product marketing but words them in such a way that is highly tortured and just doesn't make sense. Apparently you didn't parse it correctly either: More bandwidth? Even 802.11b had greater bandwidth. 6.8 Mbps is not more bandwidth than WiFi. What the quote is most likely trying to convey is that the radio has much better positional accuracy, which you didn't seem to glean in your paraphrase. 100x accuracy seems to imply that the data transmission is 100x more accurate which is not the cae. The product has high positioning accuracy. "can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth." is a very bizarre way of saying that to be charitable. "It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement" Very minimal? What is "very". Also in practice, the distance achieved is going to be dependent on power. So you can't get these maximum distances with minimal power. Also a bit misleading, as for non-positioning Bluetooth LE is superior. "with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." This is a tortured way of saying that position acquisition is 50 times faster than GPS. In practice, the laws of physics also apply. You're not getting 290m of 6.8 Mbps through any walls with minimal power.
Austin_Conlon 7y ago
The author was on a podcast (Vector) talking about Siri and voice assistants, and he said multiple times explicitly that he would only elaborate on a particular topic to people who hire him as a consultant.
- vaxman 7y ago
  I have never heard the podcast but have heard the iMore guy who runs it. I'd look at the audience before condemning a consultant for promoting himself. For media outlets that focus on business people trying to get a high-level (Apple "G"genius bar) grasp on technology, I think it's okay to self promote. Now if he was speaking at IEEE conference on engineering, there would only be peers present and he would probably want to open up a bit more.
kfrzcode 7y ago
> Nothing is free on the internet anymore That's a load of codswallop, mate. The following projects stand to prove otherwise: https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ Certainly understand your sentiment, though it's important to not spread silly FUD like "nothing is free, everyone's a shill, etc."
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  They were founded 1971 and 1985, respectively. The issue isn't everything getting worse, if anything, it's a lot of bad stuff crowding out what good things we have.
mbell 7y ago
> but feels oddly synthetic I think it's viable to determine the level of knowledge an author has on a topic purely based on the number of times the word 'technology' is used. In this case - this is almost certainly written by someone with little to no actually knowledge of the topic.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tlb 7y ago

Every article is a promotion for the author and company it’s written by. No need to point this out on every article.

kortilla 7y ago
No, there is a difference between people that genuinely want to provide good information, expand knowledge, etc and people that are just using hype buzzwords to generate sales leads.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Then point that out instead, exclusively
  - stevenhuang 7y ago
    I believe that was the intent with "promotional piece".
bduerst 7y ago
Promoted Content is an industry term, not just a phrase. Publishers will subsidize themselves by accepting money from companies to write promotional articles, even without disclosing it. There's a difference between that and an author just writing an article because it's their day job.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dweekly 7y ago

"The Decawave DW1000 Radio IC [3] for example, can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth. It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." None of this makes sense as-written. It is either techno-blither or the author doesn't sufficiently explain "distance", "power", "speed", "better" or "accuracy".

stagger87 7y ago
The quote makes sense. He's comparing the ranging accuracy of UWB to other wireless protocols while also pointing out it's relatively high throughput and low power requirements. He's also comparing the latency of acquiring ranging information to that of GPS.
laughinghan 7y ago
That mostly makes sense to me, it's a chip that allows for both spatially locating other chips and communicating with them, supposedly with more bandwidth and further range than WiFi or Bluetooth, while requiring lower power: https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/ https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- teppifk 7y ago
  I agree with the gp, the quote makes little sense. It seems to take a bunch of facts from the product marketing but words them in such a way that is highly tortured and just doesn't make sense. Apparently you didn't parse it correctly either: More bandwidth? Even 802.11b had greater bandwidth. 6.8 Mbps is not more bandwidth than WiFi. What the quote is most likely trying to convey is that the radio has much better positional accuracy, which you didn't seem to glean in your paraphrase. 100x accuracy seems to imply that the data transmission is 100x more accurate which is not the cae. The product has high positioning accuracy. "can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth." is a very bizarre way of saying that to be charitable. "It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement" Very minimal? What is "very". Also in practice, the distance achieved is going to be dependent on power. So you can't get these maximum distances with minimal power. Also a bit misleading, as for non-positioning Bluetooth LE is superior. "with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." This is a tortured way of saying that position acquisition is 50 times faster than GPS. In practice, the laws of physics also apply. You're not getting 290m of 6.8 Mbps through any walls with minimal power.

Austin_Conlon 7y ago

The author was on a podcast (Vector) talking about Siri and voice assistants, and he said multiple times explicitly that he would only elaborate on a particular topic to people who hire him as a consultant.

vaxman 7y ago
I have never heard the podcast but have heard the iMore guy who runs it. I'd look at the audience before condemning a consultant for promoting himself. For media outlets that focus on business people trying to get a high-level (Apple "G"genius bar) grasp on technology, I think it's okay to self promote. Now if he was speaking at IEEE conference on engineering, there would only be peers present and he would probably want to open up a bit more.

kfrzcode 7y ago

> Nothing is free on the internet anymore That's a load of codswallop, mate. The following projects stand to prove otherwise: https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/ Certainly understand your sentiment, though it's important to not spread silly FUD like "nothing is free, everyone's a shill, etc."

PavlovsCat 7y ago
They were founded 1971 and 1985, respectively. The issue isn't everything getting worse, if anything, it's a lot of bad stuff crowding out what good things we have.

mbell 7y ago

> but feels oddly synthetic I think it's viable to determine the level of knowledge an author has on a topic purely based on the number of times the word 'technology' is used. In this case - this is almost certainly written by someone with little to no actually knowledge of the topic.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]