It seems like the commlink has taken over alot of the communication functions of the microtranceiver. It's true they have an annoying tendency to leave a datatrail, but if you choose to "run silent" and not connect to your commcode provider and then set your PAN to hidden mode (maybe even ask it not to access the matrix on top of that) they can still connect to the other members of your team by accessing their nodes directly. On top of that, you can send more data than just voice data, like routing them video feeds or what not.

The only benefits I can see are: a commlink can only subscribe to system x 2 nodes, and if the non techie members of the group skimp on commlinks, they won't be able to communicate with everyone in the group. Tranceivers are cheap, so you can easily get a rating 6 microtranceiver for not much cash. And then they don't necessarily need to be part of your PAN, so while the signal could be intercepted, they may not be hackable.

Am I missing anything?

It really depends on how devices are presented in your matrix.

I see a strong argument for presenting devices not as node, but as simple user interfaces offering limited options.

A transceiver is reasonably safe from hackers if the only wireless functions are receiving and transmitting voice data. If it is part of a PAN, it at least shares the PANs security measures (One suggestion here would be hiding it via stealth on the PAN).

The matter of encryption stays the same. Military grade systems should constantly reencrypt their whole communications network, but that is not part of the rules so far.

Well, the simple answer there is that you get the hacker set up as the team's hub, and relay messages from everyone else.

Yes, microtrancievers are next to useless now, as are subvocal microphones.

You don't need to. You just send text messages.

Though if you really needed to, yes, you could use a subvocal microphone.

Put me in the "as much senseware as possible"-camp.

Featureless unmodified Comlink to satisfy public expectations, cybercomlink for the real workload.

Functions like browse can be outsourced to the carried comlink, making the cybercomlink even more secure because the program loadout can be changed.

Transcievers are good for one thing, and one thing only... voicecomms. My group is new to SR4, and the two guys playing adepts decided they didn't need to put much thought into commlinks, because they could still use microtranscievers.

Of course, this means no passing files around, no pictures, no maps overlaid on your vision, no +1 to +3 bonus from the hacker giving you extra info, and no ability to simply put a big red outline of a dude on the far side of a wall (the guy running the drone that COULD see him had to say "he's about six feet to the left of the doorframe," during which time the NPC had gotten his backup gun out and was ready for the attack).

They're welcome to use transcievers, they're just putting themselves at a disadvantage by doing so. The only advantage a transciever has is that it's lower profile than a commlink.

The commlink has taken over EVERY function of a microtranceiver. MTs are just... Obsolete, when it comes to functionality. The only place where they're really useful is concealability - and even then, I guarantee commlinks can be built pretty darned small anyway... Or just implanted.

Transceivers do have value.

1. Cheaper to get a high signal rating MT than a Comm. (aka good in the bush)
2. Lower risk as long as not subscribed to PAN.
3. Low risk if distributed. (Do you want to link up Joe Turncoat to your encrypted WAN or just give him a MT so he can signal you?)

I imagine that microtransceiver may have one advantage over a commlink other than concealability (which is questionable in the first place). This is in that transceivers are a sort of oldschool tech and have the advantages of such. In my view, atleast, commlinks use a form of wireless internet whereas microtransceivers will use regular radio frequencies. This would mean that the two can not communicate with each other. The clear advantage to this is that everyone expects commlink communication and would be searching for this, not radio frequencies.

This may even bring to question if you would need special gear to hack into a radio frequency. Reason for this being is nothing, in 2070, is prepared for radio signals in the first place. If a GM did rule that you needed special gear this would mean runners could use it all the time and chances are most places would not have the equipment to even detect it.

You could think of it like sending messages tied to pigeons. Yes, it is an archaic and limiting form of communication. But it has a certain element of surprise. You could imagine modern person living under very tight surveillancee but still mysteriously getting communications to the outside world. Only after the fact does the surveillancee team realize that all the pigeons that were landing on the roof of this guys place were carrying messages back and fourth.

Archaic tech is old and outdated by definition. It does, however, have an element of surprise in the 'they wouldn't be that dumb' sorta way.

Can you just get a comlink that's skinlinked to a 'trode net? And what the hell do comlinks look like?

You see the little circular things that the hacker and street sam have on the cover of the BBB? Those are commlinks, I'm guessing.

really, a commlink can look like anything, jewelry, you name it.

I suspect the pervs of the shadows to all be sporting their dual purpose... pleasure devices.

KB12: All WiFi is simply very high Hz radio broadcasting to facilitate extremely complex and quick (by our standards) data transfers.

Emo: Heh, getting a commlink skinlinked is just about equivilant to turning off your cybereyes to avoid glare in an AR environment. Sure you're protected from hacking and other annoyances but then you can't get any of the bonuses from image link usage as well (unless you took the Simsense Vertigo flaw, then it's a penalty). Also I can probably infer from the 3rd example in using AR that it's looked upon as the equivilant being constantly in hidden mode when it comes to security (as you're not broadcasting your vital information).

There is no processing delay in SR4 - neither for routing, nor for image processing (manipulating cameras on the fly).

Stitching together different angles is done automated today for 2D (check Autostitch for panorama pictures).
Given the technology and on the fly image processing of SR4, realtime map generation from video is something even mapsofts allow.

The 3d-scene would have to be an extrapolation from the sensor information present, not a real "no wall"-viewpoint. Still more stylish than the red outline.

Sure, the 'map' would have to consist of some guesses until more perspective is covered.

But for the user, it is much more intuitive.