We believed that we'd created the first viable solution for cutting the cord on the set-top box, enabling the creation of an entire class of devices and accessories freed from the tether of the audio/video cable.
Two years on, I still believe that what we'd created then was absolutely revolutionary.
I look forward to seeing and hearing what's new in terms of why each vendor's solution is better than everyone else's--compressed versus uncompressed, spectrum position, bandwidth used, yadda, yadda, yadda.
But, at the end of the day, I'm pretty certain I know most of the technical arguments; in my mind, the only thing that's going to make wireless high-def as easy as Wi-Fi is price.
The portability of a laptop without built-in wireless networking provides limited upside in most consumers' homes. Even in rooms other than the living room or main television viewing room, it's doubtful that a TV is moved more than once a year, tops. What about situations where the connection coming into the house (from the cable, satellite, or IPTV provider) is on the other side of the room from where you want to place the TV. But there's one more issue, which takes me to huge stumbling block number two. At CES 2007, vendors were quoting prices on products in the $500-$1000 range for a pair of wireless high-def devices (transmitter and receiver).