> Herbert Graf wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Warren wrote:
> > > > > Looks to me like a market opportunity, particularly for cameras.
> > > > > If I can get a 100BT card for under $10, putting the chip IN the
> > > > > camera can't be THAT expensive.
> > > >
> > > >     Keep studying the problem; you'll see why USB is better.
> > >
> > >    Standalone webcams with built-in Linux based web-server
> > > connected to intranet. How USB is supposed to be better than
> > > ethernet to this very much real case?
> > >
> > > Mike.
> >
> >         Very simple: price.
>
> Only if the camera is near a PC.
> If you need a 150' cable run, it gets awfully expensive,
> Or you're not -really- running USB on the long path.
>
> Robert

        Which is what USB was NOT meant for, I don't know why you STILL don't get
that. For most users a webcam WILL be near to PC, for the others there is
ethernet, which is more expensive, or other means (such as WiFi which is
even more expensive).

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body