New IrDA Spec Shoots for 100Mbit/s Data Rate

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at DeviceForge, the Infrared Data Association has adopted a new high speed IR communications protocol. This new protocol promises to deliver possible speed up to 100Mbit/s transfer rates. From the article: 'Of note, existing IrDA-enabled devices can be upgraded to the new protocol, thus offering the opportunity to accelerate the IrDA data transfer rates of devices in the field via a software update.'"

Re:Good, but...

[MountainMan101]

You can't snoop on it (so easily). In secure establishments bluetooth is a liability.

Re:Good, but...

[Ewan]

In secure establishments any portable device capable of being used for removing or adding new data bypassing the security is a liability, whether it's done using irda, bluetooth, cable, or pen and paper - i don't think the poor encryption of bluetooth is the issue.

I think this is quite cool

[el_womble]

I miss line of sight communications. Now I can see that when the range is measured in miles or 10s of yards line of site is probably a real issue, but when its measured in feetor inches its actually really neat.

Bluetooth is cool, I wouldn't want a LOS headset, or xbox controller and it is cool being able to sync or connect to your phone whilst its still in your pocket. But handshaking is a PITA. Say a friend of mine wants to send me a photo from his groovy new phone to my apple. I can do it with bluetooth, but I have to pair it first (grrrr). In the bad old days of ir, all he had to do was point his phone at my laptop press send, then I accepted the transmission and it magically appeared on my desktop. Sweet.

For fast, one time transmission, this technology could really make life easier. You don't have to know what WLAN to connect to, you don't have pair, you don't have to worry about firewalls or connection settings or network contention. You just fire and forget. Its not replacement for bluetooth, its complimentary.

Re:Current Speed?

[SirCyn]

The serial ports on my computers (for the last several years) can do 1,152 Kbps; basically on par with Bluetooth.

Re:Isn't IR outdated?

[mynickwastaken]

They stopped them because of the slow datarate. Todays when a photo (even compressed) takes ~800 KBytes and an MP3 ~4 MBytes, would take a while to send it to the notebook using IrDA. 100Mbit (as advertised) would be enough for thoose applications. I think if such technology would be available at equivalent or even lower price than Bluetooth a lot of manufacturers would "buy it".

BTW! There are some chipmakers which are still considering IrDA:
http://www.smsc.com/whatsnew/pr/usb2230pr.html [smsc.com]

Line of Sight is Excellent

[TuataraShoes]

I write software for the PocketPC (like iPAQs, etc.) We do printing and communications via either Compact Flash connections, bluetooth, or IrDA. By far the easiest to configure is IrDA. In fact, there is almost no configuration required. Just point the unit at the printer and hit 'Go'. No plugging in cables, no partnering devices. I can walk into a customer's office for the first time, spot an Infrared port on their printer, and print from my iPAQ with one tap of the screen. I know of no other protocol that can do that.

At training sessions we sometimes have 10 or 15 users with bluetooth, iPAQs, mobile printers and mobile phones. That up to 45 Bluetooth devices in the room. Now you try to partner the correct iPAQ with the mobile and printer of the right user. It's a bloody circus. With Infrared, there is great simplicity.

I know that IrDA is going out of fashion with some manufacturers, but I hope it continues.

IR is a great idea for small portable devices

[glug101]

Ok, long time reader, first time poster, great website love the topic....

Infra red communication holds a lot of promise for small portable devices. Yes, it is line of site, but that is an advantage for secure connections. So and so on the street can't hack your pda while it's in your pocket, for instance.

Another advantage is the low power consumption. The led's used for this convert >99% of the electricity put into them into usable light. (real world performance for the system might vary) I don't know what the efficiency is for blue tooth, but I would be surprised if it's that good for ANY rf based device.

I have used ir on my palm device and it works great (if slow thanks to the UART limit). Simple and efficient. Point and send. Wouldn't use it to surf the internet for any long period of time, but I wouldn't want to on a device that small anyway. (no screen real estate)

Re:nice

[Mac Degger]

"Bluetooth is 721Kb/s"

It might well be, theoretically. But in practice, bluetooth is a HELL of a lot slower than that.

Not only that, but as others have pointed out, its a point and click protocol and it's ubiqiutous on phones and many printers. Wifi and wireless usb are overkill for those kind of apps. And bluetooth, whilst a nice idea, is uselessly complex in practice (OK, I'll have to clarify that here; by complex I do not mean that I can't do it or that others here can't. Hell, I've got my T3 and my samsung d500 talking to each other and to my pc [notoriously irritating to get setup right]. But I have to pair the devices, look em up again, activate bluetooth on both devices etc. It's just unneccessarily time consuming to just print something or to send a file. Plus bluetooth, wifi and w-usb consume insane amounts of power, rendering them not very good for mobile/pda usage).