[opendtv] Re: Continuing with WWVB
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 10:12:51 -0400
On May 6, 2013, at 7:37 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> The real question here is whether this service is even needed in
>> the digital age. Desktop computers have had the ability to keep
>> their clocks set properly for decades.
>
> True. Because they go to an NTP server somewhere, typically also owned and
> run by NIST by the way (!), to get UTC. But for that, you need an IP stack
> and some kind of Internet connection, ISP contract, and so on.
>
> ……
> To me, the standard is most useful for any manner of appliance that is not
> otherwise connected to the Internet or to radio/TV. Like your standard
> clocks, alarm clocks, watches, etc.
But this raises an obvious question. What is the relative cost of implementing
the new radio needed to receive the enhanced WWVB signal versus a single chip
processor that implements the IP stack, and WiFi, essentially turning the
device into a "smart" programmable appliance?
Perhaps this would be overkill for a clock radio, but the vast majority of
these devices have become docks for MP3 players and smart phones, and the trend
today is to a wireless connection (usually Bluetooth) to these devices so that
audio can be streamed to them. As we move into the next generation of smart
appliances the cost of such a processor should be VERY cheap.
For example, I just purchased a Jawbone JamBox wireless speaker to use with my
Mac Mini, iPhone and iPad. The connection is Bluetooth, but the JamBox has
significant intelligence and connects to the JawBone server for updates via a
computer USB connection. It uses audio synthesis to communicate information to
the user, acts as a VERY GOOD speakerphone, and easily connects to multiple
devices. The device relies on the USB connection to utilize the computer's IP
stack and browser to connect to the server.
And you mention watches, a device I have not used since I got my first smart
phone. In case you had not noticed, there is a very large wave of speculation
about smart watches, and what they will be able to do. Actual products could be
all over the map, enabling a variety of applications. This raises the question,
would such a device need access to a radio based time service?
My personal guess is that the primary purpose for a digital device you place on
your arm will be related to security and e-commerce. Theft of smart phones and
tablets is a huge problem today. Various security protocols that let you and
authorities track a stolen device are helpful but relatively easy to
circumvent. A simple band on your arm, like the Lance Armstrong cancer survivor
bands, could contain an NFC or other security chip that pairs with your phone
or tablet to enable transactions; without both the phone or tablet could be
rendered useless.
Who knows?
A watch to figure out what time it is? That's so 20th Century!
A watch as a fashion statement - unfortunately yes; just ask my daughter.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
