Herbert Graf 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=20
> STILL don't get that.=20

   Because he is talking about "market opportunity". Look at the top
of this post. Is he allowed to talk a bit about that?


> For most users a webcam WILL be near to PC, for the others=20
> there is ethernet, which is more expensive, or other means (such=20
> as WiFi which is even more expensive).

Who are you to forecast future? There is an essential difference
between potential webcam usage  and usage of keyboard,  mouse,
monitor and similar I/O devices. These devices are needed to=20
operate a computer, But webcam is/will be used to gather video
data under or not computer control.=20

Perhaps it's against the law in Canada to use webcams at some=20
distance from a computer?

Linux and Linux-based web servers are open source -
Boa (http://www.boa.org/) and thttpd for example. SOCs are=20
getting cheaper and cheaper. It's a thankless business to=20
forecast what "most users" will prefer in the future.

Best Wishes,
Mike.

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