Incisor Stories

The Bluetooth price is right - or is it???

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:20:00 +0000

This story was published in the February 2010 issue of Incisor, and has already generated a number of email comments. A worthy contender then for putting up here in public forum. Please feel free to comment as you see fit.

Is Bluetooth pricing restricting the market?

Does your jaw ever drop at the price you are being expected to pay for things? Mine does, and especially because prices for consumer goods, ranging from a pint of milk, to a TV, to a car, seem to march unstoppably upwards, while my income has been static or falling for as long as I can remember (cue tears, please).

Like most guys, I have been a car nut for most of my life, and so one of the bellwethers for my assessment of pricing policies has been the price I have to pay for my cars. This is an area of stunning disparities. From the February 2010 issue of Car magazine, which I have read for more than 20 years and whose editorial standards I have always hoped to emulate, I see that BMW thinks it is acceptable to ask me to pay £33,000 for a Mini John Cooper Works 50. £33,000!!! That is about $53,450 for our American readers. Now, most of you will know that BMW’s Mini is a modern interpretation of a very, very small car designed in the Sixties by Alec Issigonis. It was a hugely successful, classless, spacious (for its size) and inexpensive mode of transport and occupied a sector of the market currently occupied by cars like the Suzuki Swift, Toyota Yaris, all of which have list prices that start below £10,000. Where does the other £23,000 go, BMW?

The modern Mini is still built in the UK, takes up a bit more space on the road, and has a few more gizmos than the original car, but $53,000!!! For the same price in the USA you can buy a brand new BMW 528i from a BMW dealer. How can that be? The 5-Series is two and half times as big as the Mini, has about the same multiplier more materials in it, and massively outscores the Mini for on-board technology.
And how can it be that a few pages after the report on the stupidly-priced Mini, there is a full page advert from Chrysler for the 300C, a massive, stately-looking car that has been built in the USA and shipped to the UK, and yet is being offered by the manufacturer (not, note, a discounting dealer) for a list price of £23,995 - £10,000 less than the built in the UK Mini. Again, the 300C is a full size saloon car with a leather interior, dual-zone climate control, Sat Nav, MP3 and so on. It has established a place in our market as a bit of a poor(-ish) man’s Bentley. How does this pricing thing work?

And don’t start me on the fact that Britain’s GM outpost – Vauxhall , provider of basic transport to sales reps for as long as the sun has been rising – now charges £22,000 ($35,640) for a 1.7 litre Diesel-engined Astra. The Astra, for those that don’t know it, is a small hatchback. And Volvo wants us to pay £39,000 for an electric C30, which is no over-blown SUV, but another small hatchback.

What? I say again – what????

So here’s the point
And why on earth am I raving about this in Incisor (finally, you say, he gets to the point)? Well, it is because for the last few months I have been travelling the world talking to consumers about Bluetooth. Let us set aside just for this minute any issues over set-up, interoperability, ergonomics, and even fashion. Overall, with later Bluetooth silicon now populating the devices that consumers are buying, that situation is improving. However, one message that has been universal and which continues to be heard as loudly as ever has been that consumers want Bluetooth to be cheaper than it is. And you can see their point. Let’s pick a good quality Bluetooth headset – the Jawbone Prime, for example. That sells for £99 at my local Apple store. A Plantronics Voyager PRO sells for £81. Go for a bit of luxury and a Bang & Olufsen EarSet 2 sells for £200 here in the UK and $350 in the US! The B&O example may be a bit extreme, as the company has a long-established reputation for selling beautifully styled, technically competent but ridiculously over-priced gear, but the others are examples of good quality Bluetooth headsets of the type that provide the sort of Bluetooth experience we would like consumers to have. The sort of experience that does away with a lot of the set-up, interoperability, ergonomic, and fashion issues that have littered Bluetooth’s path to greatness.

Some would say that £99 for the Jawbone is not a lot of money, and if you work in sales and marketing in the electronics industry you probably spend your life justifying the cost of the devices your company produces. But put yourself in the place of the average, over-stretched consumer. They look at what is unarguably a very small piece of electronic equipment. And then they look at the price tag. Then they mentally put this piece of gizmo-wizardly alongside the 15” flat panel HD TV with built-in Freeview tuner that they can but for £109 from a top UK electronics retailer. And they wonder why the teeny-weeny Bluetooth headset costs 88% of what the TV costs. Or a full-size refrigerator also at £109, or why the little headset costs more than half of what they can buy a Nintendo Wii for.

Stick with technology gadgets and it’s easy to find latest technology 802.11n Wi-Fi Access points from big name companies such as D-Link and Netgear, claiming 300Mbps throughput, MiMo technology and physically consisting of damned big cases presumably containing lots of components, and selling for considerably less than those Bluetooth headsets - £60 - 80.

If we face the harsh truth, some of these are items a consumer will desire more than a Bluetooth headset, and some he or she will undoubtedly need more. These items also score higher on the basis of perceived value – or at least kilogram’s of tech per buck!

As ever, it is a tough call for the Bluetooth headset company that has poured millions into developing its products and would like to see a return on the investment. But it is more than just the headset companies that are delivering consumers the same conundrum. If you spec a BMW for ‘Bluetooth phone preparation’ the cost is £535. Audi’s ‘Mobile Phone Preparation’ is £525. Gulp!

Sometimes, a little knowledge is a depressing thing
Having worked in the electronics and technology industry for most of my life, I’ve had a semi-privileged insight into what consumer electronics products cost to make. This has caused me to furrow my brow on a regular basis when faced with a retail price that seems to bear little or no relation to the BOM cost for a particular item I am contemplating purchasing. Maintaining my relentless and probably unfair focus on the poor old Bluetooth headset, I’m aware that most of the volume manufacturers will be paying between $1-2 for their Bluetooth 2.1 silicon. Take the middle of that range and it is about £0.92p in real money. Then there is a tiny pcb, a few other components and a plastic casing. I’m ready to be deluged with better-informed estimates, but where does that put us for a total BOM cost for that £88 headset? £5? £6? Go crazy and say £10? My guess is it is nearer the lower estimate.

I sympathise with both the consumer and with the manufacturer. The consumer really struggles to know how a tiny (and if we are honest, many are cheap-looking) electronic device, which most people will feel is an item of desire rather than need, can cost so much money? The poor manufacturers, still excited by the potential size of the Bluetooth market, wonder why sales aren’t higher? They will argue that when volumes grow, so prices will come down. But volumes have grown, and Bluetooth headsets have been around for approaching ten years now, yet still a quality Bluetooth headset sells for £50 – 80.

True, there are cheaper Bluetooth headsets out there, including some perfectly good ones. But at the lower end there are still plenty of truly awful products, and consumers aren’t really positioned to tell which cheap Bluetooth headsets are worth buying, and which will cause a lifetime of hassle and poor performance to rain down upon them. These are the types of headset that are prolonging the negativity that impacts on Bluetooth’s overall growth potential.

There is no magic wand solution. As time goes by, early-generation Bluetooth headsets will finally be cleared from retailer’s shelves. Later spec products will find their way into the hands of consumers, and the way will be clear for Bluetooth to finally become loved by consumers. In the meantime, manufacturers will continue to hold out with high prices for their Bluetooth headsets, and consumers will ask themselves: a Bluetooth headset or a TV/dishwasher/games console for the same-ish money? And the way this decision goes will not be hard to predict.

Thus, one reason why headset sales aren’t higher will continue to be reasonably easy to identify.

And we haven’t even touched upon stereo headsets ....

What the Bluetooth industry needs now ....

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:26:00 +0000

Incisor interview:

Vince Holton meets with Henri Seydoux, founder and CEO of Parrot S.A.

Well, we will come to what the Bluetooth industry needs shortly. Meanwhile, for those Incisor readers that don’t know Parrot, and there are not likely to be many of you, the French company has been deeply involved in embedding Bluetooth in consumer electronics devices since the very early days of the short range wireless technology. The company was founded by Henri Seydoux, and he and I both struggled to think how many years it has been since Incisor first met with Parrot in a hotel meeting room in London – we decided it was way back in 2001. Parrot has gone on to launch a range of Bluetooth-enabled products across the automotive and general consumer electronics industries.

Time, then, that we met up again, and took the opportunity to compare notes on the state of the industry, likely directions and trends. And, it turned out, for Seydoux to make an impassioned plea to the industry to take one step that would make life easier for people on both sides of the fence – developers and CE companies, and also the vast consumer market that they serve and rely upon for their existence. But more of that later.

Seydoux started the conversation by re-stating his company’s backbone philosophy, which is to re-develop classic products using today’s technology. Seydoux explained: “We are not interested in competing in me-too markets, or trying to be the lowest cost variation of a product. I have always looked at product development from the perspective of ‘what can be improved by going wireless?”

Parrot’s roots were in voice recognition – hence the name – and over the past eight years Bluetooth has since been combined with improvements in speech recognition. Parrot’s first success with Bluetooth was in the area of the car phone, and this has remained an important market for the company. According to Seydoux, Bluetooth gave Parrot the opportunity to re-invent the carphone, and to revitalise the whole carphone market.

Seydoux explained that from this platform, Parrot has looked at ways to use wireless to transform products. “As an example, I think that Bluetooth speaker systems can be very successful, and if they are going to be used in the home they have to be good speakers. Our Zikmu speakers, which were designed by Philippe Starck, are a good example. If you look at the basic design it harks back to the speaker device attached to the phonograph in the original HMV logo! The speaker itself is the static element in the music ecosystem today. Everything else is mobile – the music, the MP3 player or iPod, the laptop as a music storage device, and of course the Internet provides endless music streaming opportunities. So, to maintain the mobility, the speaker needs to be wireless, and therefore Bluetooth was a fundamental element of the design concept for the Zikmu speaker. It’s great to be able to come into your home with your laptop or iPod, just press play, and enjoy your music. This is how it should be.”

Seydoux believes that the world is ready for, and now wants wireless. His aim, he says, is not to reinvent the wheel, but to make things easier. Fortunately, Bluetooth is now part of most cellphones. “Most of the technology that has been developed around cellphones is transferable. The TV, PC and cellphone are all content sources, but you are unlikely to turn them on to look at your digital photos, for example,” explained Seydoux. “The digital photo market is enormous – the cameraphone has revolutionised the market and we now all take hundreds or even thousands of digital photos. They are a record of your life, a digital diary, but sadly, the vast majority remain on the cellphone or perhaps get transferred to a PC and archived, but never viewed. I am sure that we all value these images and would like to do more with them.”

Parrot pioneered wireless photo frames to make it simpler to transfer these souvenirs of our lives from the cameraphone onto a device that will allow us all to view them at any time. Although this is still an emerging market, and not one that has yet generated huge income, it is one that Parrot is committed to, as Seydoux explained. “We will launch a radically different product into this sector during November. This product, which saw us once again collaborate with a world-renowned designer, will introduce new technology to the photo frame concept. This is in line with our philosophy – we don’t want to compete in the low-cost part of the market, we want to produce the best products.”

Seydoux added that following November’s photo frame launch, Parrot is working towards a major launch at CES, one which, according to Seydoux “will bring to market a product that couldn’t be more wireless!” For now, this will have to be a mystery and a teaser to encourage us to book our flights for Las Vegas.

Time for the industry to listen

But I mentioned at the outset that Seydoux took the occasion of our meeting to provide him with an opportunity to broadcast to the industry something that he feels very strongly about. Now is the time for the reveal.

So, what message does this industry guru wish to distribute? Seydoux explained: “I want to reach out via Incisor because you go everywhere and to all of the developers and R&D labs in the industry. My message is - combine NFC and Bluetooth!”

Now, it is written in stone that for any technology to succeed in the consumer marketplace, ease of use is all important. It is also generally accepted that despite all good intentions and many years of work by men with beards and corduroy trousers, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth set-up is too hard for non-technical people and that circumstances – e.g. you are in a public place, a cafe, even at home/wherever - make it even harder. Seydoux explained that Parrot is aware that this is so across the range of products that it sells. “NFC is the obvious answer. Handsets need NFC. It is cheap to implement, but it is not being deployed. NFC could massively improve the ease of use situation for consumers using Bluetooth and other wireless technologies.”

Seydoux cited one example scenario – your car’s Bluetooth system. “It’s OK to set it up in your own car as you typically only do it once, but what happens when you are travelling and you hire a car? You’ll typically want to jump in the car and drive off – you don’t want to be spending time trying to pair your phone with the hire car. Bluetooth and NFC would allow you to touch your phone to a place on the dashboard, and this would be the way to simply connect your phone with the car’s audio system to enable handsfree – and therefore legal – calling in the car. Plus, and for many this is just as important, to allow you to listen to your own music in the hire car. One-touch simple pairing with NFC would have you paired in a moment.”

Another example is in the overall music sector. Sharing files is very popular, and more and more people are connecting their iPods and MP3 players to portable speaker systems, to their home stereo systems, their cars etc. “Look at just the file-sharing aspect for now – there are too many steps to go through and it is too difficult for many people to work out how to do this on an ad hoc basis. The music sharing application on its own would be enough to justify the implementation of Bluetooth simple pairing by NFC – just imagine how easy it would be to share music in bars, while on an airplane, and of course between your portable media player and your home systems.”

It must be said that this is true for all use cases. Very often the theoretical convenience – the magic, in fact - of a wireless link is being squandered. NFC would solve it, says Seydoux, as there is no software to download, the wireless link works well and is robust and efficient. And it could all happen very quickly, as a clearly frustrated Seydoux observed: “One day, one of the phone companies will make the decision to do this. It could be as simple as Apple deciding to implement NFC. If Apple does, everyone will follow – Nokia, Samsung, LG etc. The reality is that there is no reason why they couldn’t all do it now.”

As Incisor readers will know, we have been following NFC for some time, and the problem – and it may not be seen as a problem by the NFC community - seems to be that NFC is being developed as a payment protocol, and a smart card/SIM replacement. This is of course a good use for NFC, but it is hard to deploy and is therefore taking a long time to become widely used.

Seydoux conceded that some positive steps are being taken. “Wi-Fi Protected Set-Up (WPS) is heading in the right direction. Although not as simple as a one-touch NFC pairing, there is no configuration or password needed, you just press buttons on both the phone and access point. Wi-Fi Direct now continues the process of making Wi-Fi easier to use. For Bluetooth, this type of simple connectivity is even more important than for Wi-Fi because Bluetooth’s applications are much broader and you want to connect many more different types of device.”

There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was a topic that Henri Seydoux felt very strongly about. We will let Parrot’s top man close this piece by re-stating his call to action to the WPAN industry: “It is completely obvious that Bluetooth + NFC should become a standardised solution. If Bluetooth and NFC are still looking for their killer app, then combining the two could make it happen for both of them. Bluetooth + NFC will remove the need for any complex pairing process and both technologies would sell more chips and consumers would come to love the technology. This could all happen if there wasn’t so much focus on using NFC for payment systems.”

www.parrot.com

Wi-Fi Direct – a flash in the WPAN?

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:19:00 +0000

By Vince Holton

Stand back, everybody, the apple cart is in the process of being upturned again. In a move that some observers have suggested threatens Bluetooth’s hold on the WPAN market, the Wi-Fi Alliance tells us it is developing a new version of its spec that will allow Wi-Fi devices to connect in a simpler way. The new specification, which the Wi-Fi Alliance says is ‘nearing completion’ (gestation period akin to ‘.11n, guys?), will enable Wi-Fi devices to connect to one another without joining a traditional home, office, or hotspot network.

The Wi-Fi Alliance expects to begin certification for this new specification in mid-2010, well, I guess we will see, and products which achieve the certification will be designated Wi-Fi certified Wi-Fi Direct.

The specification, previously code-named "Wi-Fi peer-to-peer," can apparently be implemented in any Wi-Fi device, including mobile phones, cameras, printers, notebook computers, plus human interface devices such as keyboards and headphones. Devices that have been certified to the new specification will also be able to create connections with Wi-Fi certified legacy devices already in use. Devices will be able to make a one-to-one connection, or a group of several devices can connect simultaneously.

The spec is apparently aimed at consumer electronics and enterprise applications, provides management features for enterprise environments and includes WPA2 security. Devices that support the specification will be able to discover one another and advertise available services, and some commentators suggest that you will be able to do away with the need to use Wi-Fi routers in some places. Wi-Fi Direct devices will support typical Wi-Fi ranges and the same data rates as can be achieved with an infrastructure connection, according to the Wi-Fi Alliance, which plans to publish its peer-to-peer specification upon completion. Only Wi-Fi Alliance member companies will be able to certify devices to the new specification.

A view from the bridge
As I said at the top, some industry watchers say Wi-Fi Direct could pose a threat to the future of Bluetooth, and the Bluetooth SIG has taken a fairly robust position. Exec director Mike Foley’s full, official statement can be seen at the end of this story. It is lengthy, and I suggest you skip to the end of this story and read that as it is kinda significant, and then come back here. Please.

I will continue, assuming that you have ....

Others industry observers have been a little more forthright in their comments. It’s appropriate to share some of their views with Incisor’s readers.
Stephen Wood, up until recently the president of the WiMedia Alliance, and a technology strategist at Intel until his recent move into self-employment, commented: “It is a normal behavior for companies/technologies to try to consume adjacent applications to expand their business. That’s excellent for the stockholders of the company trying to expand, but it is not necessarily beneficial to the consumer. On the positive side, the competition will force Bluetooth to come to grips with their ease of use issues in order to compete. On the negative side, the Wi-Fi introduction will create greater customer confusion, interoperability issues, operational complexity and will accelerate spectrum congestion due to additional protocol overhead.” Wood continued, “If this move were to be done for the benefit of consumers, one would see efforts to blend the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth organizations to harmonize and simplify the collected offering. If it is done to increase revenue for the Wi-Fi silicon manufacturers, I would expect to see competing claims of superiority and efforts to displace existing Bluetooth sockets by the Wi-Fi manufacturers. Regardless of who wins this contest, let’s hope that the consumers get a device that is easy to use. It’s a goal that both groups have found challenging to meet so far.”

Technology strategist #2, Nick Hunn, a stalwart of the SRW industry, had plenty to say (who said ‘nothing new there’?). “There’s a lot of hot air been expelled over Wi-Fi Direct and its perceived threat to Bluetooth. A lot of it comes from PC industry pundits, who don’t understand that their technology is sinking as it hits the iceberg of mobile telephony. Much of the debate is academic. Both are underlying wireless transports that just perform the mechanics of shifting data. Wi-Fi Direct and Bluetooth 3.0 both use the same underlying 802.11 standard, so there’s likely to be no difference in throughput between them. Bluetooth 3.0 has some nice features, such as allowing concurrent ad-hoc connections and hotspot access, concurrent 802.11 and Bluetooth audio performance and ad-hoc security managed by the Bluetooth link itself. All of these are useful tools that help to provide an easier user experience. It may also have the edge in power consumption, as it only uses the inherently power hungry 802.11 technology when it is needed.”

Hunn continued: “We won’t know how these features compare until the first Wi-Fi Direct products appear. That may take a little longer than the press release implies, as I suspect there will be several vested interests trying to slide their IP into the spec, which will inevitably slow things down. Unless, of course, the Wi-Fi Alliance allows its members to launch pre- pre- Wi-Fi Direct products. At the end of the day, the current debate misses the point, which is that users just want to share data. They want a user interface that says “Send to a Friend”. They don’t care whether it’s Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 3G, LTE or (dare I say) UWB. As long as it’s included in their monthly call plan, it’s easy and it works.”

Wi-Fi Direct means that Wi-Fi is invading territory that once was to be UWB’s ballpark. Gary Anderson, CEO of Ultra-wideband company Uraxs, put it even more bluntly: “In the long run it will prove to be of no real threat, just a waste of time and resources. Wi-Fi is not meant to be a peer to peer technology because instead of economy of scale you get diminishing returns. I think Wi-Fi-Direct will prove to be a security, interference, and power management nightmare, if it ever materializes at all.”

If there is a bush in the vicinity, Anderson is certainly not beating around it.
Meanwhile, Fiona Thomson, research director at IMS Research saw it like this: “I think Wi-Fi Direct is a neat idea but maybe a bit late in coming? Outside of the typical handset/headset use-case I think transferring (small) files using Bluetooth is probably what Bluetooth is most commonly used for already - albeit a bit slow and probably used more by younger generations to transfer pictures, ring tones etc. Bluetooth high-speed should help with the speed issue and ensure it remains competitive/ahead of Wi-Fi Direct.”

Thomson felt that there was an undercurrent behind the Wi-Fi Alliance’s announcement. “Slightly controversially, it feels like the Wi-Fi guys are starting to do what the Bluetooth guys have been doing for a while – tweaking a technology to applications which it’s not really been designed for.” Thomson’s final comment could bring a little comfort to the Bluetooth community. “My colleague Filomena Berardi has been following this more recently for her report ‘Peer-to-Peer Wireless – Which High Speed Technology?’. I asked her thoughts and she said that while the new spec is adequate for data transfers, she’s not sure the approach really fits the streaming (audio and video) application well. In addition, during the research many interviewees argued that the 802.11 infrastructure works very well for the purposes of LAN but for PAN applications, other technologies such as Bluetooth work better.”

The sharks are circling
Whatever the technical merits and usability prospects are for Wi-Fi Direct, here at Incisor we believe that there is perhaps something more sinister going on. Of all of the wireless sectors that Incisor has followed, Wi-Fi is populated by the most aggressive and predatory gunslingers.

Even based on our limited technical understanding, it is quite clear that Wi-Fi Direct will not be the simple to use panacea that the Wi-Fi Alliance would like us to believe. But, there are a lot of powerful companies in the Wi-Fi sector that will doubtless throw all of their weight behind the trade and consumer PR campaign that we can expect to see rolled out over the coming months, and they will that say that it is. There seems little question that the goal is to make Wi-Fi the predominant short-range wireless technology and no prisoners will be taken along the way.
Unconvinced? Well, look at what happened to Ultra-wideband. This (UWB) is an extremely clever solution, and for moving large amounts of data about in WPAN applications, while using very small amounts of battery power to do so, it is unrivalled. Neither Bluetooth nor Wi-Fi comes close. This is why UWB was the partner of choice for the Bluetooth SIG to align with as its High Speed Bluetooth solution. It was publicly announced as such. But what happened? What happened is that the Wi-Fi proponents systematically stamped out UWB, using the financial clout of big-time Wi-Fi companies and the influence of their execs on various wireless technology alliances/SIGs and forums. Some will protest this was not the case, but many more quietly acknowledge that this was what happened.

But it doesn’t stop there. It seems that the Wi-Fi companies are not satisfied with wiping out UWB, they want all of the available SRW business that there is. Wi-Fi, they say, can do any job that needs to be done by a short-range, WPAN technology. Are they (the Wi-Fi companies) looking to take on Bluetooth? Is it possible that Bluetooth could be threatened by Wi-Fi? Rather than being a partner to provide a high-speed data channel for Bluetooth in the Alternative MAC/PHY scenario, is Wi-Fi actually a viper in the nest? For what it is worth, I believe that Bluetooth is the technology for the WPAN, and 3 billion installed Bluetooth devices and the presence of the tech in the vast majority of handsets will mean that that continues to be the case.

Many will argue that Wi-Fi Direct’s attempt on global SRW domination is built upon foundations of sand, and with plenty of justification. But this is to ignore the fact that exactly the same was true when Wi-Fi set out to displace Ultra-wideband.

So, there would seem to be interesting times ahead of us. As we said in the crummy pun headline, is Wi-Fi Direct a flash in the WPAN? We don’t yet know. But we expect the push to establish Wi-Fi Direct to be relentless. And, with the Wi-Fi community’s willingness to pre-release equipment to ‘draft’ specifications, how long will it be before we start seeing Wi-Fi Certified Wi-Fi Direct (Draft) products on retail shelves, confusing the heck out of consumers?

One thing is for sure ... We doubt this is the last time Incisor will be writing about Wi-Fi Direct.

Bluetooth SIG: official response to Wi-Fi Direct

The announcement of Wi-Fi Direct, from the Wi-Fi Alliance, has resulted in confusion in the wireless industry. Not too long ago, it was well understood that Wi-Fi was the best technology for wireless LAN (i.e. connecting a personal device to the Internet) and Bluetooth wireless technology was best suited for wireless PAN (i.e. connecting personal devices to each other). However, once 802.11 and Bluetooth radios both started appearing in a single device, such as a mobile phone or personal computer, the question quickly arose regarding how the 802.11 radio could be leveraged to enhance PAN scenarios. The answer to this question was the Bluetooth v3.0 + HS specification adopted this past April by the Bluetooth SIG. This specification defines how an 802.11 radio can be utilized in conjunction with a Bluetooth radio. The combination of the two radios results in a complete, power efficient system that utilizes the best features of each technology to deliver the personal area networking scenarios.

The Bluetooth v3.0 + HS specification does not utilize Wi-Fi. It utilizes 802.11 which is a specification published by the IEEE. Utilizing existing Bluetooth features, such as easy pairing and profiles, enables complete solutions that are useful and make sense for consumers familiar with the technology they have used over the years in the more than three billion Bluetooth products already in the market.

A Wi-Fi Direct connection is simply that: a network connection between two devices. Consider plugging a PC and printer into a switch using Ethernet cables and trying to print a picture. (Recall the original name of Wi-Fi was wireless Ethernet.) While the two devices will have network connectivity, and assuming there is IP infrastructure in place (DHCP, DNS, etc.) or they auto IP the same way, they will have the potential to communicate utilizing the IP protocol. Now all one has to do is install an IP port for the printer and install the driver. In the home environment, that isn’t too bad because the consumer probably has the printer’s driver and setting up the port once isn’t overly burdensome. However, in the home the consumer most likely has an access point and would rather make the printer available to all PCs in the house so one would most likely connect to the network via the access point instead of Wi-Fi Direct. When mobile, a driver most likely isn’t available and even if it was, installing it to print once is overly burdensome for the consumer. Once the printer is installed on the PC and the driver loaded, the picture can then be printed. Similar ease-of-use limitations occur when any popular scenario is explored.

Conversely, two products implementing Bluetooth technology leverage standardized profiles. For the example above, one typically right clicks on the picture to be printed and selects “print” or “send to.” The printer is then discovered and the picture prints without requiring additional drivers or software. Simple. Easy. Effective.

Clearly, there are multiple solutions available for IP service discovery. Any of these could be utilized to simplify the IP-based printing scenario described above. Unfortunately, having multiple service discovery solutions overly complicates the scenario for the consumer. It is highly unlikely that manufacturers will converge on one solution. Instead, the consumer will have to understand which solution their products implement and only purchase compatible ones. Thus the Wi-Fi Direct distinction will mean very little to the consumer. Instead, they will have to understand whether they have a UPnP, Bonjour, DLNA, SLP or fill-in-the-blank product. With a Bluetooth solution, the consumer simply needs to know they have Bluetooth enabled products.

Could this be the Bluetooth headset the world will wear?

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:17:00 +0000

It is no big secret that people feel awkward about wearing Bluetooth headsets in public. Some of the market researchers are saying that usage is declining, not growing. It is true, there are some clunky headsets out there, but there are also some that are quite discrete and – dare we say – stylish. So, user reluctance is a little hard to understand.

But things could be about to change with the launch of the Jabra Stone, a new headset from GN Netcom, the Danish company that is already well established as a leader in headset solutions. The Jabra Stone is described, with some justification, as a revolutionary wireless headset that signals a new era in style and breaks the mold of the traditional Bluetooth headset.

It certainly has a shape like no other headset on the market, and wraps behind the ear, eliminating the standard on-face microphone. As another really neat feature, the Stone comes with a wireless portable charger that also functions as a compact carrying case that fits into the palm of your hand – simply plug your headset into the charger and power-up whenever and wherever you want to. Once you’ve docked the headset into the charger, this becomes one tactile device, that everyone wants to hold and examine.

It is not just all about looks though. The Stone contains some pretty advanced technology, including noise cancelling technology while taking the microphone arm off your face. Jabra’s trademark for its system is Noise Blackout Extreme, and this is a new generation of noise cancelling technology that reduces ambient sound without compromising voice quality. It does provide an excellent balance between noise elimination and the delivery of a natural sounding voice. The technology uses dual microphones to capture sound while intelligently filtering background noise only.

Anne Rasmussen, Vice President, Mobile Division at GN Netcom told Incisor: “The Jabra Stone is truly the most revolutionary product we have ever created and we are confident that it is going to change the way consumers think about Bluetooth headsets,” said “The unique shape combines with noise cancellation technology so advanced that a boom arm isn’t needed make it an all new concept.”

The Stone also has discreetly placed controls that, unlike many Bluetooth headsets, are easy to operate. With a nearly invisible touch-controlled volume pad on the outside of the headset, users can slide their finger up or down to control the volume while on a call. The headset’s flexible frame is lined with soft rubber padding, and stayed comfortable after several hours of use while this writer drove across the USA. An ultra-soft ear gel around the speaker ensures a natural feel and the headset is flexible for a perfect fit. Nobody likes the struggle to put a Bluetooth headset on as you try to answer a call, and the Stone avoids this, slipping on without a problem.

The Jabra Stone supports Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR & eSCO, easy pairing and multi-point so that you can connect two Bluetooth enabled devices at the same time with MultiuseTM capabilities and provides up to 8 hours talk time and 12 days standby time with the Jabra Stone Charger. Other features include voice dialing (depending on the phone used), and music streaming music from A2DP enabled mobile phones. Oh, and it is lightweight – weighing only 7g.

Here at Incisor we are ready to go on record and say that this is one excellent headset. It looks good, works well, and crucially, when we have shown it around, people who have previously said they wouldn’t wear a Bluetooth headset have said “wow, can you get me one?” That is telling, which is why, in answer to our own question in the headline for this review, we would say – yes, we certainly think so.

At the time of launch, the Jabra Stone was available exclusively in the UK at Carphone Warehouse stores and is priced around £99.00.

See the IncisorTV movie showing the Jabra Stone here. (click to view)

Bluetooth dreams revisited

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:14:00 +0000

by Dean Anthony Gratton

We want to tell you a story ... it might be very familiar to some, whilst to others it may seem to be nothing more than tittle-tattle.

Bluetooth wireless technology has enjoyed a level of success, with over eleven years experience under its belt but, to date, it has struggled to capture mainstream consumerism. Furthermore, its success has pretty much been limited to enabling a variety of headsets, thus ensuring that vehicle drivers around the world have their two hands firmly on the steering wheel. Likewise, a number of vehicle manufacturers have integrated the technology into their mid- to high-end models with enormous success. This, in some respects, is a double edged sword for the technology, as Bluetooth has found itself somewhat ‘un-coolly’ pigeonholed into a niche market of clunky ‘behind the ear’ hands free gadgetry that many of us have found embarrassing to admit using. And yet, there is so much more to the technology than most consumers see. Its capabilities, if sensibly marketed from day one, should have made it a wireless superstar instead of the one trick pony it’s still commonly envisaged as. Many of us might think we know the score but, as a technology writer, the question is still so often asked” ‘What is Bluetooth?’ and ‘What will it do next?’ So let’s tackle those seemingly naïve, but nonetheless vital, consumer questions head on.

What is Bluetooth?
Indeed a contentious subject and feature, but let’s not be inhibited in delving into some core facts and analogies about Bluetooth wireless technology. Whilst avoiding a regurgitation of what we already know about the technology and the manufacturers associated hype about it; namely that it wasn’t ready when they first said it was, let’s instead focus on the notion that Bluetooth needs to shake off its association with cumbersome user experiences and begin embracing a new chapter. This is especially prevalent now, as Wi-Fi Direct is clipping at its heels! Incidentally, many seem to suggest that the Wi-Fi Alliance’s announcement was a knee-jerk reaction, as Bluetooth was rallying advocates of the technology along to steer the direction of the future of the technology. This is an area of some contention that we’ll discuss in greater depth later in the article.

In answering the question, ‘What is Bluetooth’ we have to first refer back to the original marketing touted by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) and that is, ‘Bluetooth wireless technology is (first and foremost) a cable replacement technology’. Seems straightforward, right? Bluetooth was conceived, as an alternative to cabled connectivity and was targeted to provide greater flexibility than that offered by Infrared. In other words, enabling a host of consumer electronic products that don’t need a physical connection or aren’t restricted to line-of-sight.

In short, Bluetooth wireless technology is simply a cable replacement technology.

Jack of all trades, master of none?
The Bluetooth SIG in its early days conceived numerous profiles and user scenarios, detailing how Bluetooth wireless technology could be utilised in the real world and how the technology could remedy everyday gripes when using a cable or Infrared. The process of creating new profiles is an ongoing activity within the Bluetooth SIG and, with a recent health device profile being introduced to the profile portfolio, some manufacturers are evidently vying for a new chapter in the technology’s future. Yes, eHealth, along with Bluetooth low energy wireless should pave the way forward for new applications. In particular, a recent announcement (June 2009) from the Continua Health Alliance confirms that Bluetooth wireless technology will enable a new generation of health care products.

But many have accused Bluetooth of being ‘jack of all trades and master of none’. Others have purported that it simply doesn’t have the power to diversify any further. As we’ve already hinted at, consumers seem to associate Bluetooth with headsets, and, oh yeah, you can also interoperate your phone within a vehicle that’s Bluetooth-enabled! Bluetooth has numerous profiles, including: the Headset profile (of course); Dial-up Networking, Personal Area Networking; Basic Imaging/Printing and the Synchronisation Profile to name but a few (a full list can be found on the Bluetooth SIG’s website: bluetooth.com).

The Killer Application that killed Bluetooth’s ‘cool’
So, with numerous applications available why has Bluetooth become pigeonholed into a niche? To be totally controversial here, you could say that what it does it does perhaps a little too well! It seems that its killer application quickly became so intrinsic to safe travel that it effectively ‘killed’ the technology’s potential consumer association with other applications. It’s not that its adopted value isn’t important, but rather, it was perhaps the way its integration was shaped by the manufactures that made many of us associate Bluetooth with the ultimate in ‘un-cool’. Couldn’t they have been a little more imaginative? Where’s Philippe Starck when you need him (Ed. – er, he’s here, Dean) ? But wait a moment! Are things taking a turn? Is Bluetooth finally exfoliating away its pockmarked public complexion and giving itself an airbrushed supermodelesque relaunch? The introduction of glamorous and enticing new headset designs by companies such as Motorola, Sony Ericsson and Jabra would suggest so. And now, with stereo Bluetooth strutting its stuff in the market place, Bluetooth is moving away from just a mono phone audio device and is finally seducing the public with its superior audio streaming, bringing wireless music to the masses in a totally cool way.

This success makes us wonder whether the dark clouds of the past have finally begun to clear for Bluetooth. Marketers can finally hype to their hearts content about the new look designs in a way that won’t have them blushing when they put their names to a campaign. Consumers will invest in the technology with a new found confidence that it won’t make them look geeky and will even consider trying out new forms of Bluetooth applications. The one trick pony can now think about entering the wireless technology race with pride.

The high-speed accolade
But are we getting carried away with the gloss of it all? Perhaps the success of Bluetooth dominating the short-range arena really rests upon its conquering the high-speed accolade, which the Bluetooth SIG initially attempted with the Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) offering, but clearly still fell fall short of Wi-Fi’s greater data throughput. All is not lost however, and it seems that Bluetooth is still very much in the running for long-tem success, as CSR recently announced that it has partnered with Taiwan’s leading wireless IC design houses, including Realtek, to deliver a family of Bluetooth V2.0 + High Speed (HS) and 802.11n module designs for the PC and netbook markets. The BlueCore based designs will support the latest Bluetooth SIG specifications to enable high data transfer speeds by integrating the 802.11 radio to cope with larger file sizes. Furthermore, the partnership will mean that the new technology will be able to shift seamlessly between one wireless technology and the other, thereby ensuring maximum speed and power efficiency whilst presenting a unified interface to the all-important user. This union will no doubt ensure that Bluetooth has a promising future with previously unimaginable opportunities for integration into applications.

The Wi-Fi Direct threat
Wi-Fi Direct has however been viewed by many as a threat. The Wi-Fi Alliance is moving forward with the protocol that is set to challenge the Bluetooth market head on. Theoretically capable of transferring data at 250Mbits/sec, significantly better than Bluetooth, which has yet to extend up its 11Mbits/sec range, Wi-Fi Direct should have Bluetooth trembling at its knees and yet the King seems to be standing firm and resolute, eager to prove that alliance is always better than war and focussing on the fact that Wi-Fi’s trade off for its purported increased throughput will be a much larger power draw, making it less attractive to today’s environmentally aware consumers.

Dreams revisited
We mustn’t forget that when we first heard about Bluetooth we were all blown away. It was only the premature hype of the industry marketers, coupled with poor early design integration that publically shattered the consumer dream. But it seems that finally now, in light of the new design focus adopted by manufacturers, the public embracing of stereo Bluetooth as a chic and effective way of listening to audio and the increasing reality that Bluetooth High Speed will make it and make it big, the time may well have come for Bluetooth to dream again.

Can Bluetooth be cool – Part 2 - BiteBack visits Seattle

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:08:00 +0000

And an interesting social media exercise ...

Well, it’s a month since the first IncisorTV BiteBack event, in which we took our cameras to a UK live music venue and talked to people about the way they really felt about Bluetooth – did they use it, if so, for what, and would they say that Bluetooth was cool, or naff? You can see the movie that we made here.

The exercise was a revelation, and substantially changed the way we felt about consumer perceptions of Bluetooth technology. The main observations that we made from the UK event were these:

• Young people (say, 16-25) do not use Bluetooth headsets. They see no reason to do so.

• Older people (25+) do, but mainly because they have to due to legislation – i.e. when they are in a car.

• Everybody, but everybody considered Bluetooth mono headsets un-cool and would not want to wear one in public.

• Nobody I spoke to had ever used a Bluetooth stereo headset.

• The single most popular application for Bluetooth is file-sharing – music and pictures. This application was described by a number of people as ‘cool’.

• The majority thought that Bluetooth might be more popular if it was marketed better. Most said that they never saw Bluetooth marketing.

• Many said that a) Bluetooth used to have a better visibility/awareness than it does today and b) in the social groups that people exist in, Bluetooth is used less now than it used to be.

• Several said that for the key application – file sharing – Bluetooth was too slow.

The BiteBack UK movie itself has since been watched by many thousands of people, and the exercise generated a great deal of interest from the wireless industry. The Bluetooth Special Interest Group had been following what we were doing and executive director Mike Foley used his Twitter and Facebook reach to propose the idea of another BiteBack event in the SIG’s home town of Seattle. That got immediate support, and so the plan was set. Both GN Netcom with its Jabra brand, and Parrot - two of the companies that have done most to reach out to the consumer market with Bluetooth - wanted to be part of the BiteBack programme too, and so they were soon on board.

We found ourselves a venue – the SEE Sound Lounge in Seattle’s hip and trendy Belltown area, set a date – the 30th of October – and booked our flights to get there. Remember the date, by the way, as this was the Halloween weekend. Halloween is a big deal in the USA, more of which below.

Social Media actually works!

We then wanted to promote the BiteBack event to Seattle gadget-eratti, and so there ensued a concerted social media campaign. I used Twitter and Facebook to broadcast the messages and to help me find the right people on the ground in Seattle to help me spread the word effectively. Huge thanks to Colin Christianson, Chris Pirillo and Kristina Hudson at the Washington Interactive Network. All of them are hugely well-connected people in the Seattle area with massive profiles on the various social media networks. They pushed the BiteBack message out far and wide. At the same time, Bluetooth SIG execs Mike Foley and Diana Hoffman, and the SIG’s PR agents at INK, all used their So-Me networks to push the BiteBack message out.

If we were concerned that we might have an empty venue, we needn’t have worried. On the night, the SEE Sound Lounge was so packed with people you could barely move. The Bluetooth SIG, Jabra and Parrot were all in attendance, and spent the evening showing some of the latest and coolest Bluetooth products to the assembled crowds. This was leading edge-evangelisation – face to face, telling the story, showing the products. It doesn’t get much more real!

The American way

So, how would the views of Americans differ from those of Bluetooth-using Brits? Well, you are going to have to watch the movie to get the full picture, but here are a few of the highlights:

• The single most popular application for Bluetooth amongst British users, which was file sharing – music tracks particularly, but pictures, contact details too – was hardly used by the American crowd. This wasn’t because there was no desire to do so. No, it was much more sinister than that. The reason they are not using Bluetooth to share files is because of the cynical decision by the all-powerful US cellular operators to disable the File Transfer Profile (FTP) in the phones that they supply to US consumers. They (the operators) would much rather that their customers pay to transfer their copy of ‘Party in the USA’ thousands of miles across the cellular network rather than Bluetooth it 3 feet across a table. Words fail .... The good news is that most of the people we talked to were aware that it was their operator that was doing this to them, and there was a great deal of resentment towards the money-grabbing capitalists. Hopefully, the message will get back eventually. It doesn’t happen in the UK and other parts of the world, so come on you guys, smell the coffee (Seattle, so Starbucks, presumably)!
• There is a similar reluctance to wearing mono headsets amongst young Seattle-ites, but if anything, the people we talked to were less rude than the UK people!
• There seemed to be a higher level of awareness of stereo Bluetooth headsets in the USA, but still nobody was using them.
• Show a Bluetooth product like the Jabra Halo stereo headset, as we did, and this would generally get a ‘wow, I had no idea you could buy cool products like that’ –type reaction. A few people seemed to be using Bluetooth speaker systems, but only one person admitted to ever having seen a Bluetooth photo-frame such as the Specchio from Parrot. Almost 100% of the people that we talked to agreed that they would use Bluetooth more if they knew more about it – if the products that used Bluetooth were better marketed. Likewise, show them a Bluetooth mono headset that they might want to wear, such as the rather sexy Jabra Stone, a Bluetooth-enabled head unit that they can install in place of rubbishy old CD system in their car, some handy wireless speakers so that they can listen to their music with their mates, and their eyes light up. Clearly, there is still a lot of work to be done to spread the broader Bluetooth message By the way, I know that I am referencing products from BiteBack’s sponsors here, but there are two good reasons for that. First, they are BiteBack’s sponsors, and have shown their commitment, so, hey, what else would you expect me to do? And second, Jabra and Parrot both make some of the coolest, stylish and most innovative Bluetooth products out there, so they qualify entirely on merit.
• The US people were the same as the UK people. They said that if a Bluetooth gadget they were trying to use failed to work as they wanted, when they wanted, they would probably put it away in a draw and forget about it. The ease of use requirement will never go away. It has to be simple, simple, simple.

For the rest, you will have to watch the video. Be warned, though! This was a party event, with a fancy dress theme, and that theme was Disco Monsters. You are going to be seeing some people in some weird and wonderful outfits. Underneath the strange garb, these are still young, technically sophisticated Seattle people. If Silicon Valley used to be the epicentre of young, techy geekdom, Seattle took over that mantle some time ago. These are A List, top-most-relevant-consumers for the developers and vendors or wireless-enabled electronics devices. Their views count.

Meanwhile, BiteBack rolls on. The Bluetooth SIG, Jabra and Parrot have all committed to further events, and our next stop is Asia. Details are still being finalised, but the next BiteBack looks like being a two event programme, with the team meeting with Bluetooth consumers in both Korean and Japan during the first week.

The same crew will be running BiteBack Asia, and we will be working again with Mike Foley and the Bluetooth SIG, and with Jabra and Parrot. There is no limit on who can be involved. If you want to be part of BiteBack, then contact me.

For now, enjoy the movie from BiteBack 2 – Wireless in Seattle.

Can Bluetooth ever be cool?

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:06:00 +0000

And what did real people say about Bluetooth at the IncisorTV Bite-Back event?

That is a question that must be troubling technology marketeers across the world, including the makers of headsets and other Bluetooth-enabled devices, and the organisation that manages Bluetooth technology – the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG).

Bluetooth has been around since 1998, and actual Bluetooth devices started appearing a couple of years later. The very first commercially available Bluetooth product was from Ericsson, as reported in Incisor in November 1999.

From that day forth, promoters of Bluetooth have hoped that there would be a global wave of enthusiasm for the technology from consumers. But it just hasn’t happened. Despite the fact that legislation in a number of countries forces us to use Bluetooth headsets if we want to talk on a cellphone in our cars, Bluetooth daily usage is apparently going down, not up. Research company Strategy Analytics says by as much as 40% in the USA over the last year.

Here at Incisor we think that a big part of the problem is that nobody, but nobody has managed to make wearing a Bluetooth headset cool. Instead, the words ‘Bluetooth’ and ‘naff’ are heard together on far too often a basis. Only taxicab drivers and people who wear leisure suits made from synthetic materials (ok, they are often the same people) seem to think it is OK to be seen walking around wearing a Bluetooth headset.

The web is loaded with anti-Bluetooth humour, including this. Bluetooth-mocking movies are even being used as a device by companies marketing products. Check this commercial out for Keystone Light Beer. Even the vendors of Bluetooth equipment are doing it – thanks, Philips, for this one.

Some claim to be working to try to make Bluetooth cool, and have been using the old chestnut of celebrity endorsement. Courtesy of Plantronics’ marketing machine, we learn that P Diddy, Eva Longoria and Brooke Shields apparently all use Plantronics headsets. Bluetooth headsets have even made their way into music videos – Motorola product placement is at work as we watch this one for Fergie’s Big girls don’t cry. This is one of the better ones – check out that car, that girl, that track, and the headset is OK too.

But it is not working! Or else, why are all of those iPod users still walking around with their tacky white plastic headsets? Why would we want to use wired headsets when there is a huge range of wireless headsets on the market now for similar money?

And surely this must be holding back the more widespread deployment of Bluetooth technology in other consumer electronics devices?

With some justification, the Bluetooth SIG and big-name consumer electronics (CE) companies that are supporting Bluetooth will point to the fact that billions of Bluetooth chips have been shipped, and have been built into many products that are in the hands of consumers all over the world. That is true, but it doesn’t mean that these people are using Bluetooth, or that massive chip sales means that Bluetooth has become aspirational (like, dare we say it, an iPod) or, to use the word again, cool.

So, what is the problem, and is it too late? Can Bluetooth regain the momentum it had in the early years, when people actually criticised the Bluetooth trailblazers for creating too much publicity and too much pent-up demand and hype (‘bet they’d like some of that back now!)? What would it take?

We have theories, but we want to hear from the big wide world. So we have been promoting a ‘Can Bluetooth be cool?’ blog via all of Incisor’s channels, including Twitter, Facebook and business networking sites such as LinkedIn. There have been a great number of contributions from people all over the world – some constructive, and some taking the opportunity to share some web ‘humour’. You can read all of the many, many comments by clicking on the link above, and read it at the Incisor site.

IncisorTV takes to the streets

And we took our investigation a stage further. On the 26th of September Incisor staged a public event called Bite-Back (Bluetooth/Incisor – Bite-Back – geddit?) at a venue in the UK where there was live music and – the main point – lots of young people. We took the IncisorTV cameras, a bunch of Bluetooth products and we interviewed people and asked them for their views. These can be seen by clicking on this link and watching the IncisorTV movie. As with the blog comments, there was a broad selection of views, some less than complimentary, but listening to these people’s views, thinking and responding is better than maintaining a head in the sand attitude. All of the marketeers at all of the Bluetooth consumer device companies may think they know what the consumers want, but there is nothing like hearing it from the consumers themselves.

Incisor is committed to looking for ways to Make Bluetooth Cool and plans to roll out the Bite-Back event programme, staging live events in the US, Scandinavia, Europe and maybe even Asia. The Bite-Back concept seems to have struck a chord. Headset company Jabra supported the first event, and Bluetooth SIG exec director Mike Foley suggested on Twitter that it would be good (cool?) to stage the event on the SIG’s home turf in Seattle.
So, we talked about it and we have confirmation of support from the Bluetooth SIG for the next Bite-Back event, which will take place in Seattle at the end of October.

We can’t do this on our own, so in order to do make the Bite-Back programme work as well as it can do, we need support from companies that want to be – and are brave enough to be ( ) - part of the programme. If you are interested, contact Vince Holton.

The evolution of GPS - why Google maps and Twitter are just the tip of the iceberg

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:50:00 +0000

By Martin Reidevall, Marketing Manager, Handset Business Unit, CSR

Recently Twitter announced that it is incorporating a new API that will enable users to tag tweets with latitude and longitude information. While on its own this isn’t exactly groundbreaking stuff, it does illustrate how navigation is becoming less about simple location data, and more about the services that are offered around it.

GPS has evolved from a luxury feature available in only the very high-end portable devices, to something that many people are increasingly coming to expect as standard in a new phone, PDA or even a laptop. Simply pulling up Google maps to tell you where you are is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what location data can offer. According to a report released by ABI earlier this year, mobile location-based services (LBS) will generate annual global revenues of $13.3 billion by 2013, up from $515 million in 2007.

Having location data readily available opens up a whole new range of potential services and features to both the consumers and the device manufacturers. Some devices are already taking advantage of this data, the numerous applications available for the iPhone being the obvious example. Telling you where the nearest restaurant, railway station or café is already exists in plenty of different applications. This sort of information can also be tied into advertising to allow restaurants to advertise on the application when you are in their area, and the same for shops when you’re in the appropriate shopping centre. This simple use of the location data provides additional revenue for the network operator through advertising, and, properly implemented, will offer the consumer useful, targeted information.

Thanks to the latest generation of low power chips such as CSR’s SiRFStarIV, location data can be obtained without draining the battery of the device, which had previously made LBS somewhat impractical. By being able to regularly fix your location, more applications can take advantage of LBS technology.

Social networking sites in particular are a prime target for LBS as a way of letting users know where their friends or followers are. Twitter’s recently announced API is a great example of the direction in which social networking is heading, knowing where your friends and followers are will allow you to easily arrange meetings and even plan for future events. Geo-tagging photos is already a popular feature with over 50 million manually geo-tagged photos on Flickr at the end of 2008 and a further 3 million are added every month.

Looking ahead, another market that will make good use of location data is sports and fitness. These markets are already taking advantage of LBS to help people keep track of their fitness regimes. Many people already take their phones running to use the music player, and now the navigation data provided by technology from CSR can help track their progress much more accurately over weeks or months.

Location data is already built into many new cars and there are a myriad of separate satellite navigation devices being used by drivers every day. These platforms are another good example of the extra services location data can offer, with most units now capable of providing additional options such as traffic and weather updates to allow drivers to plan the quickest route. They also provide information on local restaurants, tourist attractions and transport links, and there’s no reason why these sort of services won’t make it into phones and PDAs – updating people on delays with their usual train to work and if it’s raining at the office if it’s sunny at home.

A key issue with all of these potential applications will be privacy. There have been plenty of unfounded scare stories in the tabloid press about criminals using your Twitter info along with Google’s Street View to work out how and when to break into your home, and the idea of having your location broadcast to the world raises a lot more of these concerns. Realistically though, your location will only be available to those you choose and the applications that utilise this data require you to ‘opt in’ rather than automatically broadcasting your location data to anyone who wants it.

LBS are now really starting to make the most of location data and so far we’ve only seen a small part of their potential. As location information becomes more ubiquitous we are no longer likely to see companies striving to create a ‘killer’ LBS app. Instead we are seeing companies adding location awareness to all applications making LBS a major part of our lives providing useful information on our surroundings and daily routines.

www.csr.com

Self-powered wireless is the key to intelligent green buildings

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:43:00 +0000

By Graham Martin, Chairman and CEO, EnOcean Alliance

Intelligent building automation is the key to green buildings, cutting the costs of operation and purchases, as well as substantially reducing the energy consumed in buildings. Temperature controls for single rooms, hot water on tap and lighting on demand are in the meantime indispensable in modern building management. Building automation technologies enable control and regulation of a number of components and communication systems in one overall system. That means a variety of application possibilities, both in commercial buildings and in private households. A drawback of the different components and communication systems, however, has been the many cables and numerous remote controls needed for all the devices. Today, the sensors and switches should be self-powered, requiring no power cables, no batteries, and no maintenance.

Self-powered wireless technology enables flexibility

Wireless technology not only greatly simplifies the cabling of a building, it also enables more flexible room planning because no new cabling has to be laid if you need to change the room arrangement later on. For this purpose EnOcean supplies an innovative basic wireless technology which draws its power from tiny amounts of ambient energy found in its surroundings – such as light, temperature change, movement, rotation and vibration - to transmit signals of an astonishing range.

EnOcean modules feature efficient energy converters, ultra-low-power electronic circuitry and a highly reliable wireless protocol. The wireless signal is transmitted in the 868 MHz or 315 MHz license free frequency band, which means it can be employed in solutions worldwide. The wireless telegrams are just one millisecond long – up to one hundred times shorter than the signal of a conventional wireless switch.

To prevent transmission errors, a telegram is randomly repeated a further two times in the space of about 30 milliseconds. Transmitting data packets in random intervals makes the probability of collision extremely low. Installation and parallel operation of hundreds of wireless switches and sensors in restricted space is no problem at all.

The typical range of EnOcean wireless sensors is 300 meters in the open and up to 30 meters inside buildings. Each EnOcean module comes with a unique 32-bit identification number to prevent any possibility of overlap with other wireless switches.

Radiation levels of a building are also reduced using EnOcean wireless sensors. According to a survey by the ECOLOG Institute, the radiation given off by an EnOcean wireless switch is far lower than that of a conventional wired switch because no breakaway spark is produced during operation. Additionally, with less cabling in the wall, low frequency 50/60 Hz radiation is also reduced.

One technology for many different surroundings

Self-powered wireless modules from EnOcean are suitable for use in many different surroundings. EnOcean Alliance members have created more than 350 products for applications ranging from room thermostats with preset temperature through to maintenance-free wireless window contacts and window handles. All products enabled by EnOcean technology are entirely interoperable.

Products and systems incorporating EnOcean technology are easily to integrate into common building automation systems - regardless of whether these communicate by LON, KNX, BACnet, TCP/IP or Ethernet. Sustainable energy management concepts can therefore be implemented with very little effort or outlay.

Cost-effective entry to energy-efficient building automation

The expected return on investment when automating a building naturally depends whether the user is to derive financial benefit from reduced energy consumption. The technology that is used will hardly make sense if investment or operating costs eclipse the savings potential that it presents.

The use of EnOcean technology in building automation means a sharp reduction in both operating and acquisition costs. Employing energy converters instead of batteries is a unique approach, cutting system error rate and maintenance costs considerably, especially in large installations. In addition, wireless solutions enhance energy efficiency in residential and functional building.

1430 EnOcean sensors ensure energy savings and maximum comfort

The EnOcean technology has been successfully deployed in over 100.000 building projects. One example is the General Vocational College in the Swiss city of Basel. The college campus, designed in the 1950s and in the meantime a listed property, was brought right up-to-date in the course of extensive technical refurbishment. EnOcean's self-powered wireless technology was selected to satisfy the objectives set by Basel Corporation for energy efficiency, sustainability, comfort and convenience.

The basic demand was that everything should run smoothly, without disturbing or hindering the daily teaching schedule. Furthermore, Selmoni AG, the responsible TAC (a Schneider Company) system partner, was set demanding targets – economically and ecologically – in terms of energy efficiency. Investment costs and the scale of any changes to the actual construction of the buildings were naturally expected to be reduced, and the result was to be a modern and comfortable educational environment. Another major requirement was flexibility when it came to possible modifications of the buildings in the future.

The necessary measures were split into two stages to disturb the ongoing teaching schedule as little as possible. A major share of the work was carried out during the college vacations, for example.

To optimise comfort and convenience in the working environment, more than 300 classrooms were fitted with individual room controllers for heating, lights and shade. The technology is planned and implemented to allow later adaptation to room use simply, speedily and cost-effectively.

Timetables are held centrally in the TAC Vista management system for every single room, determining automatically whether a room is in an energy-saving mode, or in a normal mode where its climate is then automatically controlled matching outside conditions. In this way room conditions satisfy all requirements for a perfect teaching environment, and as soon as students enter the room. The energy savings achieved amount to approximately 15 percent. In parallel, within this solution, manual operation of all functions is of course also possible.

To substantially reduce installation cost and effort, and thus optimise the cost of the project overall, all switches, window contacts and room temperature sensors are linked to an LON network by EnOcean wireless receivers. A total of 1430 EnOcean sensors and 200 receivers were installed.

Flexibility made to measure

Self-powered wireless technology from EnOcean – the only wireless standard developed especially for battery and maintenance free operation - is gathering pace in building automation. Besides simplifying the cabling of a building, it allows faster response to the need for changes in how a building is internally configured. Plus these sensors do not require any kind of regular servicing. The occupants of an office have more freedom of movement and increased convenience because, if no batteries have to be replaced, they are not restricted in where they can install something.

EnOcean Alliance - The wireless standard for sustainable buildings

Leading companies from the building sector came together and formed in 2008 the EnOcean Alliance in order to develop automation solutions for sustainable and energy-efficient buildings. The Alliance aims to standardise and internationalise EnOcean wireless technology, and is dedicated to creating interoperability between the products of OEM partners. Self-powered wireless components are already in use in over 100,000 buildings worldwide. The technology is currently undergoing standardisation by the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission). At present more than 120 companies belong to the EnOcean Alliance.

Texas Instruments: Encouraging innovation and blue skies thinking

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:35:00 +0000

The pace of activity in the Bluetooth low energy market is heating up. As we move into the busiest part of the year, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group is promoting a series of conferences to promote the Bluetooth low energy concept, as well as running the Bluetooth Innovation World Cup contest. This competition sees the Bluetooth SIG looking for new applications and products using Bluetooth low energy technology, with a particular focus on sports, fitness and healthcare applications.
Back in the June issue of Incisor we talked Bluetooth low energy with Karl Torvmark of Texas Instruments Norway. TI is undoubtedly one of the companies at the sharp-end of developments in the low-energy market, and so it made perfect sense for us to seek Torvmark out again for an update on developments that have taken place over the last few months.

In this second interview, Torvmark makes it clear that Texas Instruments sees a great future for Bluetooth low energy, and believes it has the growth potential to create a market bigger than that for classic Bluetooth semiconductors.

VH: Can you give us a quick re-cap of the Bluetooth low energy concept, and how this fits into the WPAN ecosystem?

KT: Bluetooth low energy is intended to take short-range wireless forwards into new markets, leveraging the 1 billion node Bluetooth ecosystem and addressing new use cases that are not covered today.

Power consumption will be the main factor. Most current Bluetooth devices are powered by rechargeable batteries, while Bluetooth low energy opens the door to multi-year battery life using alkaline and lithium batteries. Actual battery life depends on the application, but a healthy average of 1-3 years is expected. We really want to limit the number of devices that a consumer has to keep charging. It’s all about making life simpler for consumers who are typically using multiple WPAN devices today.

Are there any negative aspects? Not really. Bluetooth low energy is in fact quite different from legacy Bluetooth, and it is true that there will be a break in backward compatibility with legacy Bluetooth devices, but by developing dual-mode Bluetooth we can continue to support both new and old platforms. Of course, Bluetooth’s profile model means that a device will only be used with another appropriate device that supports the same profile/s, so, in practice, there are unlikely to be problems related to this lack of backwards compatibility.

Looking forward, Bluetooth low energy is about new applications, not the established, high-volume applications such as handsets/headsets. Bluetooth low energy will become standard in the hub devices. It will take a few years to complete the transition, but in handsets, which tend to be changed quite often, this could come quite quickly. Overall, it will expand Bluetooth’s reach into new kinds of applications.

VH: What is the latest news on the Bluetooth low energy spec adoption timeline?

KT: Well, TI is actively involved in the development of the Bluetooth low energy spec, so I have a pretty good understanding of the timeline. The spec is nearing completion and at the moment it is looking most likely that the ratification of version 1.0 will happen before the end of 2009. The actual development work is all done, so at this stage it is all a case of completing the paperwork.

As with any development programme there has been a little slippage here and there. There is no doubt that in this example, dual-mode Bluetooth low energy is complex for the chip vendors, but from the user’s point of view it just works. There have been a lot of companies involved, too, although in this case there I am pleased to say that there has been little politics holding things back. This has been a relief and has smoothed the process. Inter-company politicking has previously held back standard development for other technologies - take the DS-UWB versus MB-OFDM debate in the world of Ultra-wideband, for example. The process for Bluetooth low energy has been quite straight-forward by comparison.

VH: Bluetooth low energy will be implemented in two versions – dual- and single-mode. Can you please give us an overview of the likely applications for dual-/single-mode?

KT: Dual-mode will be used in ‘hub’ devices such as PCs, mobile phones, access points and personal navigation devices (PNDs). These are typically the type of devices where Bluetooth is implemented today.

Single-mode Bluetooth low energy is for the peripheral devices that typically operate using button cell or alkaline batteries, and which connect with the hub. Examples include wireless sensors and proximity tags. I think that rather than being able to predict the breadth of applications, we’re likely to be surprised by what turns up. It is quite possible that the ‘golden application’ might not be what we are expecting!

The health and medical industries, for example, are very interested in developing around Bluetooth low energy, and it is quite possible that once these markets start to expand, the applications that they develop could exceed consumer applications. The health industry can see that Bluetooth low energy can help improve care standards and reduce costs. In these application areas it is possible that there could be some crossover with ZigBee, but not much. That’s because Bluetooth low energy is unique in that it allows you to communicate with a cellphone, and therefore out into the wider world. Bluetooth low energy is a WPAN technology, ZigBee is WLAN. Of course, this is not an issue for TI, as we are well-represented in both the Bluetooth and ZigBee markets!

VH: Texas Instruments will offer both dual-mode and single-mode Bluetooth low energy silicon - how unique a proposition is this?

KT: TI announced that it would support both Bluetooth low energy solutions as far back as 2 years ago, and up until recently we were still the only company to be doing so. Our strategy is to offer a broader portfolio of wireless technologies than most semiconductor companies. Again, a good example of this is our support for both Bluetooth low energy and ZigBee.

This policy means that we always have the right solution to meet our customer’s needs, rather than having to try to adapt an existing solution that has been designed for something else. It also means that TI has a lot of experts across many disciplines, and this can be extremely useful to customers as they develop their products.

VH: What do you see as the likely split in take-up between the dual- and single-mode?

KT: I think it is inevitable that dual-mode will be implemented first; it will be integrated into existing ‘hub’–type devices - cellphones tend to dominate here.

In the longer term, sales of single-mode devices will pick up substantially. After all, in a typical application, the quantity of sensors is most likely to outnumber the quantity of host devices.

As a general point, think about the fact that Bluetooth, which would be considered to be a high-volume business, has succeeded in what are mainly vertical applications – handset to headset, for example. Bluetooth low energy can expect to be implemented in many more generic markets, and so its potential ‘reach’ is greater. Sales could end-up exceeding those of classic Bluetooth.

VH: What is the silicon timeline, then, and when are we likely to see chips?

KT: TI has had working Bluetooth low energy silicon since April this year, and we were able to play a movie of a working Bluetooth low energy demo at the Bluetooth All Hands meeting in Japan. At that point we started sampling our biggest customers, and that is where we are today.

We can’t get around the fact that the profile specification is running a little behind the protocol spec, and so this sampling phase is likely to continue for a few months more. The sampling phase has an additional benefit as it allows customers to dip their toes in the Bluetooth low energy water. It is quite normal not to want to get too deeply involved until the spec is finalised and adopted.

That said, most of the companies that are trialling at the moment have been in the Bluetooth market for some time and so have a lot of experience. This has meant that things have run smoothly and there have been no major issues. Maybe problems could show themselves when the technology extends out into the mass-market, but we think not. That is because Bluetooth low energy will be relatively simple to implement, and customers will only have to interface with the technology at a high level.

These factors will all work in Bluetooth low energy’s favour, as will the fact that Bluetooth low energy is not completely new, unlike when Bluetooth first hit the market. So there is a solid platform of experience and awareness to build from. Also consider that we have reached the stage when consumers actively want wireless technology, so we are experiencing ‘pull’ as well as traditional market ‘push’. We are seeing a culture change, and these sorts of thing take a while to happen.

Once the sampling phase is complete and the spec has been published, we expect to make Bluetooth low energy silicon generally available in the first half of 2010.

VH: Why is the Bluetooth Evolution World Cup important to TI?

KT: The biggest drivers for Bluetooth low energy are the concepts that are dreamed up that then become applications for low-energy technology. It is about much more than just removing cables – in fact, we think that Bluetooth low energy will be at the heart of many applications that cannot work without a wireless link.

So, when this competition to encourage application development around Bluetooth low energy was announced, TI thought this was a very clever initiative, hence the decision to sponsor the Evolution World Cup and to work alongside the Bluetooth SIG.

TI wants to get as many people as possible thinking about what applications can be devised around Bluetooth low energy. The goal of the Bluetooth Evolution World Cup is to have three winners with great application ideas. These will be announced at the end of the competition at this major sports and fitness event. They will get plenty of publicity and so will Bluetooth low energy!

VH: Over the coming months there is a series of Bluetooth conferences in Munich, Beijing and the USA. I know that TI is participating, so what is the overall significance of events like these to TI and to the Bluetooth community?

KT: All of these conferences are organized by the Bluetooth SIG, and that is very important. If a technology is to succeed on the world market it needs to have a powerful standards body behind it, one which will evangelise for the technology as well as manage the standard.

The people who will think about how to use Bluetooth low energy are as much of a target for this series of conferences as those who will develop the technology. This means that many end-product companies have been invited to make presentations. Bluetooth technology is already an established concept in many end-product companies, but it needs many, many more companies to buy into the idea of integrating Bluetooth. Typically, these companies don’t know a lot about wireless technology, so there is a big task ahead of us to help them. A programme such as this series of conferences is a very good starting point.

The process will be helped by the fact that – unlike high speed Bluetooth, which has a smaller number of use cases – Bluetooth low energy potentially touches many more applications and many more markets. Bluetooth low energy is of interest and importance to mobile operators, system integrators and the medical and home monitoring communities. In most of the scenarios that these powerful players will devise, there will be a desire to move data off the local platform and out to the Internet. A dedicated access point is not ideal – on a cost basis apart from anything else – but the mobile phone is everywhere, ubiquitous even.

So, as we go forward, the goal is to address people far beyond the traditional device manufacturer market, and to devise ways to help them get data on and off the Internet without having to rely on the presence of a Wi-Fi connection.

The Internet of Things is a concept that is generating a lot of publicity today. Here at Texas Instruments we feel that Bluetooth low energy will be a very important enabler of this concept.

www.ti.com

Can You Spot the Difference: 802.11n Has Been Ratified?

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:33:00 +0000

It’s here ...!

No, not that poltergeist thingy – you know, 802.11n: the IEEE Task Force have finished! The specification formerly known as 802.11n Draft N (or the IEEE’s draft 2.0 of the specification) is now a fully-fledged ratified standard! And yes, we’ve been a little exuberant and somewhat excessive here and, to be perfectly honest, it was absolutely crazy in the office during our celebration of its final arrival. Moreover, we all became a little incessant, as we mulled over the numerous applications that would follow – streaming video over a wireless connection – yikes, it could really happen! Admittedly, the alcohol was flowing steadily over several hours, as we sat back and mused over the years of an Indiana Jones high-speed wireless adventure and dismissed several unrealistic blue-sky notions, whilst the alcohol took effect. The IEEE 802.11n Task Group have now fully ratified the standard after what may have seem to be an eternity, albeit seven years or so in its formation. Nonetheless, what joy, as it surely translates into consumers benefiting from true high-speed wireless connectivity – something which has beleaguered Bluetooth over the last few years or so. Now let’s continue with this exclusive story!

The awakening
So, as we sat and wondered how to share our insight and experiences surrounding 802.11n and, of course, the foretold promises of amazing data rates of up to 300Mbits/s (possibly more) – we suddenly awoke from our stupor with a deep sobering realisation.

In our awakening, as we started to examine more closely at what 802.11n would do for the wireless telecommunications industry along with its many adopters, a cold and sobering thought entered our minds. Our thoughts became a little clearer and we unravelled and finally rested on the single notion that both manufacturers and consumers alike have already been enjoying 802.11n for a couple of years now, as ‘Draft N’! You must surely recall that the Wi-Fi Alliance (wi-fi.org) offered an interim certification for a feature subset of the future 802.11n standard back in 2007. Crikey, what’s new then? Furthermore, it seems the Wi-Fi Alliance (the certification group) assures its member companies and consumers that nothing will change and that products supporting Draft N will coexist with the new 802.11n ratified standard.

The only agenda
Following seven years of waiting, it may be easy to forget that an interim solution was offered during 2007. In fact, the Wi-Fi Alliance offered its member companies an opportunity to manufacturer 802.11 Draft N products and still receive that all important certification! Presumably, the only agenda was to sustain a stagnant PC market, enabling consumers to receive an intermediate revision of the future 802.11n standard and, as a consequence, consumers would ultimately benefit from increased data rates following the success and popularity of 802.11b and 802.11g.

On the other hand, there have been many manufacturers who backed away from incorporating such an immature technology, due to the simple fact that it wasn’t finished. Richard Edgar, Product Manager for Wi-Fi at Cambridge Silicon Radio confirmed, “there has been a reluctance to commit to 802.11n because it was in draft,” he continued to suggest that many vendors felt it was always subject to change. Nevertheless, Edgar was confident that many manufacturers would now embrace the ratified standard, not just the PC industry, but many mobile phone manufacturers too. Edgar suggested that although mobile phone manufacturers have patiently waited for the ratified standard, some of the antenna technology may have been too cumbersome to integrate it into a small form factor. The additional features offered within the ratified standard, however, provide support for multiple antennas for improved performance and reliability, but this will inevitably have an impact on cost, battery life and so on. It will certainly be interesting to follow-up on how mobile phone manufacturers integrate 802.11n into their products.

So, what are the differences?
As we touched upon earlier, Draft N was a subset of the proposed ratified standard, where a number of basic features were introduced into Draft N-enabled products. Nevertheless, with this in mind we wondered whether the ratified version would offer further enhancements. As such, to feed our effervescent curiosity, we eventually caught up with the Wi-Fi Alliance who offered us a better insight, as to what consumers can expect from 802.11n. The most obvious visual changes are to the Wi-Fi logo, as we can see in Figure 1 – the ‘Draft’ supplement is no more!

Sean – insert <> here
Figure 1: The obvious first change made to the Wi-Fi logo is the omission of the Draft status.

The Wi-Fi Alliance has also provided two additional Wi-Fi logos, which shall indicate to the consumer what feature set or functionality they can expect from a new 802.11n product; these are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Primarily, the feature sets will “deliver a significant boost in performance,” according to the Alliance. The new taglines that occupy the sample logos will be offered to manufacturers as long as their equipment is successfully certified for the additional features. It is suggested that devices that conform to the “multi-stream n” certification may offer up to 10x the throughput and wider service range when compared with legacy Wi-Fi devices.

Sean – insert <> here
Figure 2: A sample of the updated logo to include the tag line “dual stream n” (courtesy of the Wi-Fi Alliance).

Sean – insert <> here
Figure 3: A sample of the updated logo to include the tag line “multi-stream n” (courtesy of the Wi-Fi Alliance).

Better performance and reliability
Essentially, the IEEE’s ratified 802.11n standard offers existing functionality that ensures backward compatibility with Draft N products, but also with other 802.11b-, 802.11g- and 802.11a-enabled products in a mixed-mode context – it is envisaged that a mixed-mode operation will inevitably impede performance for most devices. In an optimum environment 802.11n devices will interoperate with other 802.11n devices offering the best performance in a Greenfield context. The Alliance suggests that the new features offered by the newly ratified standard are optional but, when implemented, will deliver a better connectivity experience and increase performance. Likewise, the new features will also provide increased reliability in unfriendly neighbourhoods by utilising multiple antennas.

In looking towards the future of the 802.11n standard Richard Edgar, CSR, disclosed to us that the IEEE has initiated two new task groups, namely 802.11ac and 802.11ad. Edgar explained that the former standard would offer various enhancements to 802.11n and the latter would take the technology to the much sought after 1Gbps data throughput. But he suggested that these improvements are several years away at the moment. Of course, Ultra-wideband theoretically offers consumer data rates comparable to the 1Gbps threshold now! However, Edgar declined to comment when pressed about the future of the technology and how he envisaged the future of Wi-Fi applications when compared with Ultra-wideband. Similarly, we were also curious about 802.11n support within the Bluetooth Alternative MAC/PHY (AMP) layer. Edgar explained that current support for AMP was limited to 802.11g, but he expected support for 802.11n early next year (2010).

A certain future
The Wi-Fi Alliance is incredibly confident and rightly so. Nonetheless, consumers may not immediately benefit from increased performance, as there is a large Wi-Fi technology base consisting of legacy technologies (802.11a/b/g) and it may take several years (if not more, perhaps a decade?) to witness 802.11n operating in full Greenfield mode, where consumers will truly benefit from a very tangible 1Gbps data throughput. Likewise, the Wi-Fi Alliance and CSR for that matter don’t expect all these new features to be incorporated and certified overnight, and it may be a few more years before we witness increased data rates. In fact, current testing highlights consumers realistically witnessing 110Mbps or so with existing 802.11n products; it was suggested that we would begin to see new features circa 2013 to 2015.

It may not have escaped the keen wireless technology observer that Wi-Fi seems to be creeping into an application space that’s normally privy to Bluetooth and Ultra-wideband. Nobody at the moment seems to want to share their thoughts and some are keeping their cards close to their chest. But for the keen observer, Wi-Fi is broadening its application reach. With the initiation of the two new standard groups, that is 802.11ac and 802.11ad, we can be assured of a sustainable and certain future for Wi-Fi technology. And on a final note provided by the Wi-Fi Alliance, “The good news is that the extensibility, flexibility and robustness of 802.11n guarantees [it] a long, long life”.

Dean Anthony Gratton.

New IncisorTV movie - Real people talk about Bluetooth at Bite-Back event

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:29:00 +0000

Can Bluetooth ever be cool is a question we have been asking for more than a month now. There has been an extensive blog debate here.

We had theories, but we wanted to hear from the big wide world. So we have been promoting the ‘Can Bluetooth be cool?’ blog via all of Incisor’s channels, including Twitter, Facebook and business networking sites such as LinkedIn.

IncisorTV takes to the streets

But we took our investigation a stage further. On the 26th of September Incisor staged a public event called Bite-Back (Bluetooth/Incisor – Bite-Back – geddit?) at a venue in the UK where there was live music and – the main point – lots of young people. We took the IncisorTV cameras, a bunch of Bluetooth products and we interviewed people and asked them for their views. These can be seen by clicking on the link to the Bite-Back movie here. As with the blog comments, there was a broad selection of views, some less than complimentary, but instead of being industry views, these were real consumers, and listening to these people’s views, thinking and responding is better than maintaining a head in the sand attitude. All of the marketeers at all of the Bluetooth consumer device companies may think they know what the consumers want, but there is nothing like hearing it from the consumers themselves.

Incisor is committed to looking for ways to Make Bluetooth Cool and plans to roll out the Bite-Back event programme, staging live events in the US, Scandinavia, Europe and maybe even Asia. The Bite-Back concept seems to have struck a chord. Headset company Jabra supported the first event, and Bluetooth SIG exec director Mike Foley suggested on Twitter that it would be good (cool?) to stage the event on the SIG’s home turf in Seattle. So, we talked about it and we have confirmation of support from the Bluetooth SIG for the next Bite-Back event, which will take place in Seattle at the end of October.

We can’t do this on our own, so in order to do make the Bite-Back programme work as well as it can do, we need support from companies that want to be – and are brave enough to be - part of the programme. If you are interested, contact Vince Holton.

The Three Screens Platform, Part 2, Docking with the PC

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:24:00 +0000

By Stephen Wood, Technology Stragegist

This article is the second in a six part series discussing the convergence of the Smart Phone, Personal Computer, and Television. Each article will discuss an event or technical capability which is forecast to emerge in the near future. These forecasts were developed for Incisor using new techniques in market analysis that provide a context against which Incisor readers can evaluate the value of innovations entering the market.

The prior article in the series, The Emerging Three Screens Platform, described how the smart phone, PC and television were being connected together into a common logical system. In the same way that the PC was a physical platform and the Internet emerged as a logical platform, the Three Screens logical platform will cause significant changes to the way in which we interact with technology.

This article and several others in the series will explore portions of the Three Screens platform in detail. The focus of this article will be the connection between the smart phone and the PC. Just as docking stations were created for notebook PCs to enable them to gain access to better user interfaces, wired networks and peripherals, three screens docking will expand today’s docking station to enable the smart phone to connect to peripheral devices and other computing systems.

Before getting into the details of docking and the applications that it will enable, consider a theoretical point for a moment. Engineers all over the world are deeply involved in trying to figure out what new features should be added to the mobile phone. This is proving to be a challenging question for them. However, much of the difficulty is due to how one frames the problem.

If one believes that the task is to find new features to make a superior phone, the task is particularly difficult. This is because existing phone designs already excellent at solving the problem which telephony is intended to address. If, by contrast, one asks the question, “What can be changed to make an extraordinarily good mobile computer that also does telephony?” the range of options expands significantly.

This is a valid way to frame the problem because of the way that the market is evolving at present. If one looks at the computer industry, it is following a very clear trajectory. Desktop computers came first, followed by notebook. The next computer in the series is handheld. If one looks at the evolution of the telephone, it is moving from wired/stationary to wireless/mobile to intelligent/wireless/mobile. The definition of this last stage looks very much like the same device being built as the handheld computer. The markets are converging into a common device. However, the telephony portion of this common device is already quite mature as it has been in this form factor for some time. The greater opportunities for innovation are in the computation portion of the convergence. This then is where development teams will need to focus their attention in the search for differentiation.

Handheld computing differs from notebook computing in one very significant way. The notebook computer is a desktop computer that you can easily pick up and move to a second location. It is not mobile. It is nomadic. By contrast, the handheld computer needs to be both mobile and nomadic. In a mobile context, it talks to the world over a Wide Area Network (WAN). In a nomadic context, it employs a variety of short range connections. These are not just wired and wireless physical links. These connections also describe protocols and capabilities affecting security, enhanced user interfaces and improved ease of use. The best way to convey the idea of a docking system for the mobile computer is through application descriptions.

As an example, imagine that the user is a tourist visiting Rome. Rather than carrying a laptop computer, they carry a smart phone / handheld computer. At some point, they wish to sort through their photos, edit one or two and then email them home to their friends. So, they enter a local Internet café where they dock into a terminal which is composed of power, a monitor, keyboard and Internet connection. The terminal lights up as their personal PC using software and data resident on the handheld device. The larger screen and the keyboard enable the tourist to view and crop pictures. They write a long letter into which the photos are added. When they are done, the letter is sent. The tourist then picks up the handheld device and leaves, taking all of their data and software with them.

This example highlights the ability to temporarily enhance the user interface. While a thumb based keypad or a touch sensitive screen is an excellent choice for sending a quick note or an unmodified photo, it is insufficient for many tasks that involve creation tools such as word processing, presentation development, photograph editing, video editing, programming, etc. In these cases, the user shifts from a mobile context to a nomadic context where they are temporarily stationary.

As a second example, imagine an outside salesman for a engineering test equipment manufacturer. On a visit to one of his regular customers, he recognizes the opportunity to sell one of his company’s new oscilloscopes. Now, these devices cost about $45,000 each and weight around a hundred pounds. So, it is not practical to have one in his car. Instead, the salesman docks with the customer’s projector. He pulls up a presentation and walks the customer through the major features of the oscilloscope. When he is done, he disconnects the projector and docks with the user’s printer to print out the latest data sheets on the product.

This type of connection resembles the manner in which PCs connect to their peripherals. In this example, the application is nomadic. However, the connection could also be between the handheld computer and a heart monitor, pedometer or other health and wellness sensors.

In a third example, imagine a soccer mom going about her daily activities of shopping and managing children. Before leaving the house, she connects to the Internet. A program on the handheld computer quickly downloads music and video that have been selected to match her tastes. She bundles up the kids and loads them into the car. By docking her mobile computer into the car, she initiates a number of exchanges. The music that she downloaded from the Internet is uploaded into the radio where it can be used to create logical “stations” that are selected through her radio buttons in addition to normal radio stations. A movie is also uploaded to the car’s entertainment system to be played on the passenger seat display to keep the kids occupied during the drive. The car then uploads data from the engine to mobile computer. Assuming that the customer has signed up with their auto dealership, his information can be fed back to the dealer to monitor the car’s performance. Driving information can also be collected and fed back to insurance holders in order to earn good driver discounts.

As one of the soccer mom’s stops, she visits a grocery store to pick up a few items for dinner. Her handheld computer can be used as a financial instrument to dock with the Point Of Sale (POS) terminal to pay for her purchases. Instead of relying on a four digit PIN code, the handheld computer can use more sophisticated identification methods to prevent theft. The POS terminal also deposits electronic coupons onto the handheld computer and stamps her electronic loyalty card to enable her to get discounts for later visits. Any application for which a ticket or chit is provided can be adapted for use on the handheld computer. Valet tickets, prescriptions, theatre tickets, business cards, laundry tickets and a host of other incremental applications are possible.

Unlike a traditional notebook docking station, the dock for a handheld computer/smart phone needs to be standardized and common so that it can be readily employed by manufacturers across a number of different businesses. It needs to employ the security and identification functions that are present on the three screens platform in order to enable financial transactions. It should be able to identify the customer in order to associate consumption information to the right individual in order to build reliable profiles. In order to place and remove data from the device, there need to be common protocols for establishing where the device will be located and which programs have access. And because all of this connectivity creates an ideal viral environment, it is also necessary to have malware suppression technology to keep the system safe.

To bring this discussion all of the way back around to the beginning, these examples demonstrate how the change in mental context away from the obsolete mobile phone context and to the emerging converged context enables designers to readily develop new applications and to describe the functional blocks that enable them.

If the convergence that the market is entering were limited to the blending of PC with mobile phone, it would be a fairly straight forward task to identify all of the emerging features and uses. But there is more to this convergence than just these two. In the next article, the discussion will shift to include the convergence between the mobile phone and the television.

Additional information about the three screens platform and other upcoming market events can be found at www.mappingthewhitespaces.com.

Stephen Wood has spent the last eight years developing a series of behavioural models which explain the behaviour of high tech markets and which provide insights about upcoming events. These models provide the basis for the projections described in this series.

Additionally, Stephen has spent the last twenty years doing market analysis and product management in PAN, WAN and LAN technologies. Most recently, he held the role of President for the WiMedia Alliance in UWB personal area networking. Stephen’s website at www.mappingthewhitespaces.com discusses his models and forecast.

He can be contacted at
wood.stephen@verizon.net

pat6ckrjbu

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:59:00 +0000

pat6ckrjbu

The future of the in-car GPS device and co-operation of in-car wireless technologies

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:47:00 +0000

By Thomas Carmody, Head of Automotive Marketing, Audio and Consumer Business Unit, CSR

Industry trends in in-car navigation devices
The world of in-car wireless technologies is undergoing some fascinating changes right now. Not least amongst these is the world of in-car GPS-enabled devices. In-car GPS was once a luxury item. But over the last few years, thanks to the pioneering efforts of companies such as CSR and SiRF (now merged), GPS-enabled chip technology has become smaller, faster and more cost-effective. GPS systems, whether factory-fit in-dash, or aftermarket PND or car stereo-based, are now comfortably within the reach of everyman.

Moving forwards perhaps the biggest change on the horizon of in-car navigation is the ‘coming-together’ of different wireless technologies. GPS systems have now progressed to a point where they can bring in elements from other technologies to achieve a system that is greater than the sum of its parts.

The merger of CSR and SiRF has also seen a ‘coming together’: the market leader in short-range mobile handset connectivity technologies with the market leader in GPS chipsets. This combination of skills makes the new enlarged CSR the best qualified company to address this brave new world of in-car GPS.

Increased interconnectivity in converged navigation devices
Much like mobile phones, in-car GPS-enabled devices are fast approaching the point where it no longer makes sense simply to speak of separate ‘a GPS unit’ or ‘media centre’. Such devices are converging to fulfil multiple functions; a trend that will only continue as components become smarter through increased integration of multiple technologies and ultimately incur less cost to incorporate into designs. Forward-thinking companies are already starting to view in-car radios in terms of their overall potential, and looking at how to integrate additional connectivity technologies to ensure the functions co-operate to best effect. This opens up many fascinating possibilities.

CSR’s existing automotive products such as RoadTunes and RoadRunner already address the growing popularity of wireless audio streaming in-vehicle, and the importance of the car's media player as the hub of in-car electronics functions. CSR predicts that in-vehicle systems will see an increased coming-together of wireless technologies. Manufacturers of navigation/infotainment devices will have to understand these trends and develop their new solutions to meet user expectations for increased connectivity requirements.

In the near term, improvements to the wireless hands-free calling experience, currently streamed via Bluetooth to a compatible factory-fit or aftermarket in-car device, will be augmented with better, more reliable phonebook synchronisation using the Phone Book Access Profile (PBAP). The market can also expect to see a higher call quality with the adoption of wideband speech and other near-end enhancements. This will have significant implications for speech-recognition dialling in the car, which reduces physical contact between the driver and his phone and leads to safer driving when making or taking calls on the road. In addition Bluetooth stereo streaming will gain even wider adoption as it has matured significantly in recent years and now features a user-friendly in-vehicle control mechanism with the Audio-Visual Remote Control Protocol (AVRCP) v1.4 specification.

Looking at the future of the PND, the comparatively larger screen and longer battery life make the PND an ideal device to use as a 3rd screen within the car to provide users with easy access to their phone’s text messages and emails via Bluetooth connection. This is only the beginning and now the question is what additional functionality can be integrated into the PND to help carve out its future role in the automotive market.

Perhaps of the most exciting prospects on the horizon for the in-car navigation/infotainment sector is Wi-Fi. Support for Wi-Fi has now been adopted within the Bluetooth specification as of the 22nd April this year. The new Bluetooth specification Bluetooth v3.0 + High Speed (HS) is expected to make it into in-vehicle devices in 2012. With the adoption of Wi-Fi as the first AMP (Alternate MAC PHY) to enable a “fast data pipe” for Bluetooth, a new and exciting array of use cases are opening up to the navigation/infotainment device designer. Consumers will be able to synchronise a complete music collection, photo gallery, video or other media collection in a fraction of the time it takes traditional Bluetooth radios. For business users maps, telematics, route, diagnostics and a host of other information taken and or generated on long journeys can now be easily and quickly be accessed via Bluetooth v3.0 +HS from the navigation/infotainment device. Files can be transferred to a compatible device without the need for physical wired connections to the vehicle and in a fraction of the time it has taken in the past.

In addition to this CSR views internet connectivity within PNDs via a cellular connection on the horizon. At this point Wi-Fi will have a role to play in connecting portable gaming devices, laptops etc to the internet-connected device. Cellular connectivity will also have a role in downloading and uploading a navigational device’s map and telemetry data.

It’s truly an exciting time to be working in automotive connectivity. With the range of functions on offer in future devices, and the market-leading capabilities of SiRF and CSR’s location and connectivity technologies enabling the development and manufacture of the next generation of navigation plus connectivity products.

www.csr.com

INCISOR WPANEL 8: The value of social media to wireless marketeers

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:16:00 +0000

Welcome to this feature in which the Incisor WPANel speaks on a topic of interest to short-range wireless industry observers.

The members of the Incisor WPANeI are the senior executives from the organisations that manage the administration and development of Bluetooth, DECT/CAT-iq, EnOcean, NFC, Wi-Fi, UWB/Wireless USB and ZigBee technologies.

The ongoing WPANel members are Mike Foley, exec director of the Bluetooth SIG, Erich Kamperschroer, chairman of the DECT Forum, Graham Martin, chairman of the EnOcean Alliance, Edgar Figueroa, executive director of the Wi-Fi Alliance and Bob Heile, chairman of the ZigBee Alliance. Each of these is an expert in short-range wireless technology. Due to work pressures, Mr Koichi Tagawa, chairman of the NFC Forum has had to pull out. His place on the Incisor WPANel should be filled soon by another executive from the NFC sector.

Last month the WPANel group gave us their views on high energy WPAN technologies? These can be read in last month’s issue.

This month’s topic: The value of social media to wireless industry marketeers
In a conversation with a client recently, it became apparent that even to business people, social media, as represented by Twitter, Facebook and quasi-business/social networking sites such as LinkedIn, were becoming a vital if not dominant aspect of the marketing roadmap. This made me stop and think. It is undeniable that the worlds of marketing and media are changing. We all know that traditional publications are having a hard time, because the business world is no longer sure that printed media is the right channel to use to promote itself - thanks heavens that Incisor has always been an Internet publication!

This paradigm change in marketing tactics applies across the board, from phone companies, to car companies, to fertiliser manufacturers, banks, software companies and yes, even semiconductor companies. Everybody knows that the Internet is where they need to be, but very few know how to use it. And it just got more complicated because all of the attention now is on social networking – the likes of Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn, MySpace etc, etc. I am on all of them, and most active on Twitter (www.twitter.com/vholton) where my ‘reach’ is now to more than 6.5 million people around the world (don’t believe me? Check out my score at independent Twitter analyser: http://twinfluence.com - score for @vholton - Reach=6,547,477, Rank=#13,066 – that is out of 23 million Twitter users, by the way), Facebook (www.facebook.com/vince.holton) and LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/vinceholton ). I welcome all of you to connect with me on any of these sites.

When my client contact told me that her company would be making a sea-change in the way that it marketed itself to the world, and that social networking would be an extremely important facet of the marketing and PR programme, my first thoughts were – how can this possibly be relevant to B2B marketing within the tech industry? Well, my client and several e-gurus whose views I know and trust all tell me that it is. And the industry is already Twittering – EnOcean for one, and even huge, traditional companies like Texas Instruments!

For me this is an extremely important topic and colours the way I will operate my own business from this point forwards. I asked the WPANel member to give me their thoughts on this increasingly important subject. Ideas for consideration included:

• Do you consider that social networking has a role for the short range wireless industry?
• Are you actively using social networking today to promote your technology or your company?
• How important do you consider this technique to be, now and in the next 10 years?
• Is it possible to successfully blend content that a wide audience will find interesting, with the need to distribute your company- or technology-specific messages to the key contacts that you want/need them to get to?
• Do we honestly believe that volume of contacts is important – “our viral video was viewed by 150,000 people on Facebook” or is it getting to the right contacts that is still the most important – “our message got to 1500 people, but we know that they were 1500 people that were really important to us, and we weren’t wasting money chasing tens of thousands of clicks that were of no use to us at all”?

The panel’s views are below. If you have views, or suggestions as to how we can develop the WPANel concept, or topics you would like to see covered, email me at vholton@incisor.tv.

Vince Holton
Publisher, Incisor & IncisorTV

The Incisor WPANel responds:
Will short range wireless technology really change our lives?

Mike Foley
Executive director, Bluetooth Special Interest Group
Twitter. Facebook. Social media in general seems to be all the rage these days, yet nobody seems to know what to do with it. These questions aren’t limited only to businesses or industry organizations. When I attended the D7 Conference earlier this year, Biz Stone and Evan Williams the co-founders of Twitter were the first speakers and even they didn’t have a clue regarding how to capitalize on social media in general and Twitter specifically. This was discouraging because they clearly have more to gain, or lose, than I do with the presumption being that they have spent significantly more time and energy trying to answer these questions.

Since the Twitter gang isn’t providing any insights, we are left to our own devices. Currently I find social media interesting, but am not yet convinced it is important. We are engaging. We are learning. We are experimenting. I’ve written a blog for years now. I tweet (@WirelessMike). I have a Facebook page. The Bluetooth SIG tweets (@BluetoothSIG) new products that are qualified. The Bluetooth SIG has a LinkedIn group for people interested in Bluetooth technology. We are exploring a Bluetooth SIG Facebook page, but haven’t implemented that yet.

The obvious question is: “Are these tools returning dividends for the Bluetooth SIG?” Unfortunately, the answer isn’t so obvious. My blog is well read and a great tool to deliver SIG news to a broad audience. However, I find it interesting that my annual pumpkin carving posts, with pictures, are some of the most viewed each year…

My hunch is these social media tools are all going to play a part of our online strategy, but not be our online strategy. One of the challenges we face is getting our messages to the proper audience. For example, when we start a new work group to create a specification enabling a new use case, we want to get related information to our members as well as to non-member companies that may be interested in that use case. This is a vastly different audience than consumers – a group we wish to educate about the enormous assortment of products they can obtain to simplify their lives. Social media can help us to reach these very different groups. We may evolve our Bluetooth.com web site to directly target the consumer while Bluetooth.org provides a portal into the Bluetooth SIG for members and businesses. A Bluetooth SIG Facebook page could be used to target consumers utilizing that service and guide them to the content on Bluetooth.com. Similarly, the LinkedIn group for members could be used to communicate with business professionals and drive them to content on Bluetooth.org.

I’m hoping that social media, utilized in this way, will prove to be a powerful communication tool for the Bluetooth SIG. Time will tell. I’m sure we won’t get it right the first time and will continually be tweaking our tactics while keeping true to our strategy.

Erich Kamperschroer,
Chairman, the DECT Forum

We strongly believe that social networks already play a major role in private and B2B communication today. There will be national elections at the end of September in Germany and at this time all of the political parties that are fighting for voters are intensively utilising Twitter & Co. for their election campaigns. Are we sure that Barack Obama would have succeeded in the November 2008 US elections without having focused on new media and social networking for his very “modern” campaign?

For almost 20 years, DECT as a short range wireless technology has ensured that people can connect, speak to each other and definitely do social networking privately and also for business reasons. With CAT-iq devices and the connection to the Internet the new technology provides not only voice but also text communication. There is definitely a major trend to connecting to friends and business partners from all over the world. It is quite exciting to see what kind of products or devices will be provided by the industry to meet these needs and to guarantee local and mobile access to these platforms.

It seems to be already a fact - if you watch the behaviour of young people - that they are quite familiar with Twitter & Co., and it looks that social networks are already replacing text messaging via SMS, which is quite costly if you use it extensively.

Marketing strategies can use social networks to interact with people or target groups. Not to make money but to use the social communities to spread and leverage your messages, products, and services. With social networking you can benefit from the advantages of the Internet: it is global, available 24/7, and it is interactive. Therefore social network marketing will replace classical advertising – in the same way as digital online media are replacing the long-term dominant print media and even TV.

Edgar Figueroa,
Wi-Fi Alliance Executive Director
With apologies to Incisor’s readership, Edgar Figueroa regrets that he was not able to submit his text in time for this issue. Normal service will be resumed next issue!

Bob Heile
Chairman, ZigBee Aliance
Social networking’s role varies depending on communication needs of both the sender and the receiver. If the people you are want to talk with prefer to do so via a social network, then you have your answer. There’s no doubt that social networking is transforming how many are communicating with stakeholders – from consumers, analysts, media, government, engineers, developers, etc. This seems quite similar to the way e-mail transformed our lives -- for better or worse. We’re definitely in a transition phase right now and I’m sure these new communication channels will stay around, and a few may even fall out of favor and die off.

We’re evaluating each social network platform to see what makes the most sense for the ZigBee Alliance. We’ve launched an official Twitter feed. Outside the Alliance, there are ZigBee forums on social platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn. As for its importance in a few years, I consider it less a technique and more of an evolution on how we are communicating. We will continue to evaluate what channels will bring the most ROI for us. It’s important for everyone to know that you can’t be everything to everyone. What’s important is to prioritize your key audiences and provide relevant information. Am I interested in reaching a graphic designer on Twitter? Probably not. Am I interested on reaching a potential member with questions about ZigBee? Absolutely.

For some groups, having a viral video viewed by millions of people may make sense. But what it comes down to is reaching the right audience with a message that informs and inspires action. The ZigBee Alliance works to engage with others on a B2B-level and that requires addressing topics that are meaningful to them. Our strategy is not chasing eyeballs on a mass scale, but generating dialogue about ZigBee with companies developing home automation products, and utilities expediting their smart grid development plans. We also want to talk with the engineer that wants to be part of the next ZigBee effort to provide new products and services to a new marketplace.

Graham Martin,
Chairman, EnOcean Alliance
When I first looked at some of the new social networking tools such as Twitter I quite honestly thought – what is the world coming to? Do we not have real lives? It is obvious that media and communication is shifting from print to on-line, but do we really want or need to know what somebody just had for lunch or what is the name of his new pet hamster? However, after hiring a top notch young and dynamic PR Manager, I was soon to see a more complete picture and drastically change my tune.

Social networking and media sites such as Linked-in, Xing, Twitter and You-Tube are becoming highly important and effective additional ways of providing messaging and information also amongst business communities. As opposed to thousands of e-newsletters and e-advertisements people receive and rarely have the time to read, social networking and media gives business professionals and companies the choice of informing themselves on a particular subject or company when they wish to. They can collect relevant information on specific topics, for examples in various forums or groups, and communicate directly with relevant partners in this field. There is also the snowball effect, where various individuals or companies forward interesting information to their contacts which can within a very short timeframe lead to your message spreading virally reaching thousands or even millions of relevant people with minimum cost and effort.

Social networking will not replace traditional PR methods, but is already becoming an innovative addition that will become an important part of any modern PR strategy. This is a very positive evolution and I am sure that we will see a huge growth of this media platform in the near future.

EnOcean was one of the first wireless companies to become active in social media with its own You Tube channel and Twitter account. Others such as Texas Instruments are also actively Twittering and I am sure many more will soon follow these innovative leading companies. If you don’t want to be left behind and are looking for more information on EnOcean or an example of social networks feel free to start at http://twitter.com/EnOcean_en. or www.youtube.com/enocean.

The Only Alternative: Bluetooth and Ultra-wideband

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:07:00 +0000

by Dean Anthony Gratton

The potential and associated applications for Ultra-wideband have been promised by numerous manufacturers over what may seem to be an eternity. We have all become very excited about the real possibility of Ultra-wideband delivering high-speed connectivity with data rates that are comparable to its USB-enabled counterpart (if not more!). We have to be careful not to portray an obituary listing in this feature, but rather focus more on a reflection of a collage of anecdotes that have led to the current status of the technology. Moreover, we need to address this current status, along with understanding the existing high-speed offering (that is Wi-Fi), and to review the long-term benefits of Ultra-wideband’s integration into the Bluetooth specification.

With good intent
In reality, the WiMedia Alliance has been disbanded and inevitably it will soon cease any administration activities for its former members along with terminating the evolution of the technology completely – this responsibility shall soon be bestowed to the Bluetooth SIG. Likewise, many Ultra-wideband silicon manufacturers have been unable to sustain a presence during an economic crisis where companies have folded and the more steadfast have simply culled their staff. Roberto Aiello, former co-founder and CTO, Stacatto Communications concurs “the economy didn't help in the last couple of years, because it made it more difficult to raise the capital required to complete the commercialization.”

As we fondly recall Ultra-wideband’s journey, the early days of the technology’s promise was filled with extensive paperware slideshows, all demonstrating many use case scenarios. It was these use case scenarios that bestowed our over-active imaginations with the promise of true high-speed wireless connectivity, albeit over relatively short-distances (less than 10m or so). The motivation was a simple one; penetrate as many consumer electronic products as possible.

A frustrating time for all involved
Ultra-wideband allowed us to conceive, with a sense of proportioned reality, that a digital video camera, for example, could realistically wirelessly stream high-quality audio and video content to the TV. The technology purported ultra low power usage, deeming the technology suitable for most, if not all, electronic products, so the excitement was certainly well-founded. But alas, the technology endured an unfortunate rollercoaster ride in its endeavour to become the one and only wireless high-speed solution. Its early onset was marred by a battle of which is better: orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) or direct sequence Ultra-wideband (DS-UWB)? Indeed, two very different schemes, which are incompatible.

The battle commenced: the two technology camps took their respective corners and burdened the technology’s full introduction to market and adoption by other manufacturers for a number of years. In the meantime, a minority of manufacturers suitably massaged their egos, in turn, stifling the growth of Ultra-wideband – ultimately, this led to uncertainty and frustration for all involved. In the ensuing years two alliances formed, each touting their respective Ultra-wideband flavours, namely the WiMedia Alliance and the UWB Forum – the latter group were advocates of the DS-UWB offering. The eventual “we prefer this one” accolade was handed to the WiMedia Alliance and its first product offering deflated the industry, as the intensely proclaimed data rates of up to 480Mbps were nowhere to be seen. The OFDM frequency scheme assured us of minimal interference from other neighbouring wireless technologies – surely, a wireless utopia steeped with true untetherred connectivity. It’s like offering an elixir to eternal life in one magic shot – one sip, that’s all you need, and a sustainable and unrelenting wireless connection can be yours!

Humph – such a depressing tale, but nonetheless it’s all based on true events!

The elusive high-speed accolade
Meanwhile, the Bluetooth SIG was looking to enhance its technology portfolio. With Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) and Enhanced Data Rate (EDR) the Bluetooth SIG offered the industry several new techniques that potentially reduced interference from neighbouring wireless devices (using AFH); plus a solution with EDR to polish up its high-speed offering (at a modest 3Mbps). Alas, it still wasn’t enough to achieve high-speed throughput for streaming video.

It seemed the streaming video trophy still remained elusive and out of its grasp for the Bluetooth SIG. Moreover, the Bluetooth SIG had to react quickly, since the IEEE, with a new and improved flavour of its 802.11 portfolio (despite it being marketed as a ‘draft’ version), was dangerously clipping the Bluetooth SIG’s heels. The 802.11n offering increased data rates, along with backward compatibility with previous generations of 802.11 products – some astonishing foresight not to entirely nark the existing consumer-base! Finally, with 802.11n, the industry had in its possession a viable wireless high-speed solution that would potentially deliver streaming video content for a host of electronic products and gadgets.

Living with or without you
The kerfuffle of the Ultra-wideband story and associated rumours of its demise have been bubbling around for over a year or so now. In fact, Incisor featured a story titled, The Tortoise and The Hare in November’s 2008 issue highlighting the Bluetooth SIG’s introduction of its Alternative MAC/PHY layer (or AMP). Indeed, many in the industry were somewhat agog and aghast at the partnering of what was once considered to be two competing technologies – “Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are what?” Incidentally, Incisor recalls a conversation with Alan Woolhouse, former Vice President of Marketing & Communications at CSR, who shed some further insight “Bluetooth over 802.11 is not done through a merger of technologies. Bluetooth is just using 802.11 as a fast radio to transmit Bluetooth data.” Woolhouse intimated at the time, “Testing for the new specifications is already ongoing - when this will be completed is unknown at this point, as three interoperable prototypes have to be shown to work and pass a comprehensive test specification to be "ratified" by the Bluetooth SIG.” Initial feedback seems to suggest that this would be completed around the second quarter of 2009, although Incisor hasn’t been privy to any new announcements surrounding the success (or failure) of interoperability testing.

What is clear however, is that most consumer electronic products use both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, as part of their standard feature set, so Bluetooth piggybacking, if you like, Wi-Fi to transmit or receive large data, seems to make sense. But, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi serve two very different audiences – two technologies providing different use case scenarios. Well, we have certainly been told that over the last decade or so, right?

The Only Alternative
Anyhow, what some individuals might not be aware of is that the Bluetooth AMP architecture permits radio independence for the Bluetooth software stack. In other words, the AMP architecture is an hardware abstraction layer (or HAL) permitting any radio, along with a suitable abstraction interface, to coexist. The AMP proposal suggested that no modifications were required to the actual Physical (PHY) or Media Access Control (MAC) layers, but instead, the solution offered a “four address” packet format, which would be used to transmit Bluetooth-specific data. Naturally, this would ensure that a Wi-Fi access point could coexist in harmony, allowing both devices to transmit and receive data simultaneously (at this time, it’s a theoretical assumption).

So, in essence the Bluetooth SIG could plug in either a Wi-Fi or an Ultra-wideband radio assuming that a suitable abstraction layer was present. The intent of the architecture proposed by the Bluetooth SIG would suggest that it perhaps wanted to integrate Ultra-wideband into its future specification, but when we spoke with Mike Foley, Executive Director of the Bluetooth SIG, he commented “UWB could become a part of the Bluetooth specifications if the WiMedia members agree to contribute that work to the Bluetooth SIG such that it can be adopted as a Bluetooth specification. If and when that occurs is up to those companies that participated in WiMedia. Since this occurring is such an uncertainty, UWB is not on the Bluetooth SIG roadmap. It can’t be added until it is known that the technology can be used in a Bluetooth specification. Doing so before then would be premature.” Eh? What was that Mike? Nonetheless, Roberto Aiello, former co-founder and CTO, Statacco Communications, vehemently supports the technology transfer to the Bluetooth SIG, saying “the WiMedia [Alliance] made the right decision to offer the technology transfer to WirelessUSB and Bluetooth, because with all the standardization heavy lifting behind us, those groups can control the whole product certification.”

If you build it, they will come
The AMP architecture may paint an idyllic picture, but the Bluetooth SIG can’t surely expect to utilise Wi-Fi as a long-term high-speed solution? It would imply that products targeted as high-speed would need to incorporate both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi is sometimes notorious for being power hungry and an application overkill. The advantages and future for Bluetooth wireless technology must lie with Ultra-wideband being the only alternative. It enables the Bluetooth SIG to truly offer an independent high-speed solution (that is, away from Wi-Fi) and offer more bespoke applications that can ultimately take advantage of the inherent low power characteristics of Ultra-wideband and not just its high-speed attributes. Nevertheless, Aiello is adamant that WirelessUSB-enabled products will continue to move forward despite the WiMedia Alliance’s demobilisation, as he reckons “the standard is complete, the certification program is in place, and some products are shipping.”

Perhaps, the Bluetooth SIG’s hesitation at this stage is simply based on their conclusion that Ultra-wideband still isn’t ready for them? Despite the standardisation process being in place for the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the SIG instead provides a short-term solution with Wi-Fi that still meets the need for the ever-so impatient consumer. Moreover, it may be biding its time to ensure that when Bluetooth v4.0 (this is nothing more than pure speculation) appears it’s fully prepared to deliver the promise of high-speed wireless streaming audio and video content with ease and, dare we say, simplicity.

About the Author
Dr Dean Anthony Gratton is a bestselling author, writer and telecommunications consultant. He has authored several patents, contentious articles and a number of bestselling books on wireless technology. He has worked within the telecommunications industry for over sixteen years and provides consultancy to a number of high profile companies.

You can contact Dean at incisor@deangratton.com and follow him on Twitter @grattonboy, but you can read more about his work at www.deangratton.com.

The emerging three screens platform

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:00:00 +0000

By Stephen Wood

This article is the first in a six part series written by Stephen Wood, discussing the convergence of the Smart Phone, Personal Computer, and Television. Each article will discuss an event or technical capability which is forecast to emerge in the near future. These forecasts were developed for Incisor using new techniques in market analysis that provide a context against which Incisor readers could evaluate the value of innovations entering the market.

In the early 1980s, the personal computer emerged as a platform which combined the microprocessor, memory, display and I/O into a single system. This physical platform transformed the world. In the 1990s, the Internet emerged as a logical platform composed of PCs, browsers, and the telephone network. Like the PC before it, the Internet has radically changed how we conduct business and entertain ourselves. And now, another major platform is beginning to be defined. The Three Screens Platform will connect the smart phone, the personal computer and the television together into a common, collaborative system which blends the capabilities of their respective networks. Over time, it will also connect the automobile and the point of sale into the platform as well.

Just as the PC and the Internet emerged to fill needs that the mainframe and data networks could not readily satisfy, the three screens platform is emerging to address needs which have proven to be challenging for the PC, mobile phone and television to satisfy independently. As an example, consider the PC’s track record on ease of use and reliability. Do you ever encounter the “blue screen of death” on your television? Does your refrigerator ever get a virus? How long does your microwave take to boot up? Maybe you have to pay for food repeatedly when you move it from the freezer to the oven. These problems with the PC have been well known for several decades but remain unresolved.

In addition to solving these long term problems, the emergence of the three screens platform will expand the scope of applications that can be addressed. Imagine being able to select music and video to take with you on a vacation trip. This content is quickly downloaded to your smart phone. From there, the content is uploaded into your car. The music becomes part of virtual radio stations that can be selected by pressing radio buttons. Unlike the radio, songs that grate can be skipped. There are also no dead zones to fall into. If you run out of content while on your trip, more can be purchased from kiosks at gas stations, rest stops and stores along the way. The functionality added by the three screens platform will allow for the smooth movement of content between various devices and across various networks with minimum of user intervention.

To do this task, new capability will need to be added to each of the component platforms to allow them to interact in the common system. Here is a description of some of the missing pieces.

Trust - A chain of trust needs to be established from the hardware up through each of the software elements. Trust is required to conduct e-commerce transactions and to suppress malware.

Identification – A combination of hardware and software must be able to identify the user at the user’s request in a verifiable manner. This capability enables reliable access control, improved financial transaction authorization and membership.

Management – The overhead of managing the devices and the network needs to be passed to network administrators to offload work from the consumer and to increase the reliability of the network. The end nodes in the devices must be able to respond to management requests.

Data Shuttle Protocols – Many transactions that will occur should not require the direct input of the user. This includes data exchanges for personalization data collection and context monitoring. A uniform process for making these authorized, but independent exchanges needs to exist.

Composability Protocols – Devices need to be able to share capability to create an optimum user experience. For instance, a smartphone user may wish to temporarily connect to and drive a keyboard and monitor in order to create a short Powerpoint document. Composability protocols allow authorized and available resources to be identified and recruited.

Traffic Scaling – Transferring a HD video stream for viewing on a smart phone consumes both time and power. Methods must be created by which the content transferred can be well matched to the intended user experience.

Personalization / Context Awareness/ Privacy – The options available to the user at any given moment could become overwhelming, requiring almost continuous user input and an unacceptably high level of knowledge on the part of the user. To avoid this, the system must be able to collect data about “normal” use patterns in order to infer how the user intends to use the device. When data is collected, the aggregators must abide by existing laws governing privacy. Where laws do not exist, the privacy policies should still guarantee consumers a responsible degree of protection.

The elements required for this platform were not randomly chosen. To get this list, it was first necessary to assemble the applications which were to be enabled by the new platform. Each of these applications was then broken down into the functional blocks that would be needed to run it. And finally, when the list of functional blocks was aggregated, those which were needed across a significant percentage of applications were considered to be part of the platform. Those listed in a small percentage of applications are treated as options. To get a feel for some of the applications that were used, consider personalization as an application.

Know me, show me …
Personalization is a hot category of late. This technique involves collecting information about a user’s consumption patterns and using that to suggest future consumption. Amazon uses it to recommend books. Google uses it to place banner ads that are related to the search being performed. Tivo uses it to recommend and acquire other television programs that you may wish to watch. Taken to a more extensive level than is being done today, one would collect consumption information from any available point of consumption and use that to perform more exhaustive analysis. This would include gaming use, energy consumption, e-commerce purchases, video traffic patterns, voice call use, etc. Obviously, given the potentially intrusive nature of this development, one would also like to see a strong privacy policy simultaneously introduced.

Personalization of this type requires data collection that performs to agreed levels of accuracy. It requires methods by which to transfer data to an aggregation point where profiles can be drawn. It needs to make sure that the data cannot be spoofed or corrupted. Advertisers will depend upon this data to set rates and to monitor ad effectiveness. Likewise, the data being transferred needs to be secure to avoid eavesdropping which might potentially allow an unauthorized party to violate user privacy. All of these requirements and more were fed into the platform definition.

Shifting sands
Just as the technical markets and the business world evolved in response to the introduction of the PC and the Internet, the introduction of the three screens platform can also be expected to generate a lot of change. Some of the changes will be in the form of new applications while others will be in the form of major changes to existing platforms and market ecosystems.

As an example, consider the relationship between the smart phone and the PC. Over the last forty years, the PC has evolved through the desktop and the notebook and is now moving into the handheld generation. The handheld generation of the PC is the smart phone. This step causes telephony and computing to converge. The emergence of the three screens platform will enable the smart phone generation to work with the desktop and the notebook generations more completely.

Recognize that the smart phone has certain limitations in terms of its user interface, its battery size and its memory capacity which make it ideal for mobile applications, but deficient for work which stresses these functional blocks. For instance, it would be inconvenient to create a detailed Powerpoint presentation on a smart phone due to the limitations of the user interface. To compensate for this, the three screens platform functionality needs to allow the smart phone to temporarily exploit the functionality of a desktop or notebook (through docking) to expand the user interface while it is needed and while the user is stationary and then to conveniently disconnect and allow the smart phone to become mobile again when the work is done.

Operator challenges
As an example of a significant change in the ecosystem due to the three screens platform, consider events from the perspective of a quad play network operator. It benefits the network operator to connect the networks that they have together as tightly as possible. For instance, a wireless mobile operator wishing to create a video service can only deliver video via an expensive WAN link. By contrast, an operator that has wired video operations as well as wireless mobile operations has the option of creating a video service where video is delivered to a set top box and then transferred to the mobile device via a LAN or PAN link. They have access to more bandwidth and more cost effective delivery to make a business. By connecting the networks closely, customer churn is reduced and profitability can be optimized.

Additionally, a quad play network operator will be in a position to collect more consumption information to use for personalization of advertising. Instead of being limited to just telephony data, a quad play operator will be able to draw upon television traffic, Internet traffic, telephony, any connections which the mobile phone might eventually make (i.e. e-commerce, gaming, applications, location). When this data is combined, it enables much more precise profiling of a consumer and therefore makes a much more attractive solution for advertisers looking to deliver messages to a target audience. This enables the network operator to charge more for its superior targeting ability.

The quad play operator benefits from the three screens platform and is in a position to encourage and direct its evolution. This will tend to move the quad play operator into a control position in the computing ecosystem in a similar manner to the way that they own a control position in the mobile telephony and television ecosystems. The emergence and full development of the three screens platform and ecosystem will take several years to occur, but the speed with which it emerges will accelerate as manufacturers become aware of the market’s .

Additional information about the three screens platform and other upcoming market events can be found at www.mappingthewhitespaces.com.

Stephen Wood has spent the last eight years developing a series of behavioral models which explain the behavior of high tech markets and which provide insights about upcoming events. These models provide the basis for the projections described in this series. Additionally, Stephen has spent the last twenty years doing market analysis and product management in PAN, WAN and LAN technologies. Most recently, he held the role of President for the WiMedia Alliance in UWB personal area networking. Stephen’s website at www.mappingthewhitespaces.com discusses his models and forecast. He can be contacted at wood.stephen@verizon.net

What next for the smart phone?

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:45:00 +0000

By Raj Gawera, VP Marketing Handset Business Unit CSR.

In terms of current technology the smartphone has pretty much every base covered. It takes care of our emails, diaries, work calendars, phone calls, music, photos and videos, social media, and its on-board GPS tells us where we are and the best route to get where we need to be. In fact the smartphone has almost caught up with the laptop and it’s streets ahead already for battery life.

The convergence of the smartphone and the laptop, in particular the notebook, is something that has been debated many times. Today’s smartphone already has the processing and memory power of a laptop from ten years ago so it’s hardly surprising that people are wondering when the functionality from a modern laptop will make it into a phone, and indeed if that will make the laptop redundant.

The laptop will always have a key role to play for mobile business and communications but the increased functionality of the smart phone will see it replacing other devices that play a large part in our lives, from the MP3 players and cameras that it already rivals, to bank cards, keys, heart monitors, medical devices and remote controls. The smartphone’s multiple wireless technologies provide an advantage that a dedicated device can never offer, for example a camera phone can use GPS to geo-tag it and then Wi-Fi to upload the photo to a social networking site.

The smart phone will never replace a laptop and neither will it replace high end consumer goods such as digital SLR cameras and MP4 players, but the majority of people don’t need 80GB of music or a big camera, they need a few GB of music and 5MP camera that will take half decent photos and this is where the smartphone is best placed to take over. Original music phones only had a memory with enough room for a handful of tracks, but with expandable memory options a smartphone is now offering up to 12GB of space for music. Multiple wireless technologies give the smartphone the edge, for instance by using the on-board Wi-Fi the phone can also stream internet radio or an FM transmitter allows music to be played on a car stereo.

Through CSR’s Connectivity Centre products, handset makers can include GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy and FM all on a single module, with more room for more to included.. While it is practical for smartphones to include this high level of functionality it’s not for cameras or MP3 players to do the same. The biggest advantage that the smartphone has over a dedicated device such as a camera is the wide range of wireless technologies that it offers, most of which are already built in.

There are also plenty of additional functions that are starting to appear in smartphones and features that will see impressive growth in the coming years. Remote controls have already converged into a single multifunction unit, but with the predicted massive growth in Bluetooth low energy why not include such functions into the phone? You can already use your phone as a remote for laptops through Bluetooth; Bluetooth low energy can take it to the next level by allowing you to control home entertainment equipment, garage doors and even home automation systems such as heating and lights. The built-in GPS could allow the phone to switch on the garage remote function when you return home, switch on the remote for the projector or laptop at work when you’re in the office or even switch off your heating as you leave the house.

Thanks to the growing interest in Near Field Communications (NFC) you could leave your wallet at home and store your bankcard details on your phone instead. CSR demonstrated working NFC silicon at Mobile World Congress in February. The technology could even replace your car keys; many new cars feature keyless entry and ignition, requiring the key-fob to just be within a certain distance for the start button to work. There’s no reason why this technology couldn’t be embedded into a phone to cut down on the number of devices we need to carry with us.

All of this will be enabled through the smart integration of wireless technologies as illustrated in CSR’s Connectivity Centre. The key user benefit for this technological approach is that people should not need to notice what particular technology is at work, only the service that they are receiving as a result. They select location, not switch on GPS; they choose to surf the web, not to activate Wi-Fi to take them onto a wireless access point. With its Synergy software, each technology in CSR’s Connectivity Centre works seamlessly together, enabling the best technology to be used for each purpose without the user having to choose between them.

"Read the complete issue of Incisor Magazine in which this article appears : Click here

A bitter harvest: ZigBee Green Power

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:39:00 +0000

ZigBee has been something of a contentious subject over the last few years or so. It has received some moderate attention at Incisor, but nothing sensational that would make us sit up and start taking notes. Arguably, a lot of the ZigBee news has been lacklustre and likewise, it has drawn some of us to several unfounded and premature conclusions, one of which might have been, “Could this be the last curtain call for ZigBee?” ZigBee isn’t necessarily a newbie wireless technology, but despite its longevity it still seems relatively new; if you like, it’s still wrapped up in its packaging.

ZigBee enters the healthcare market
ZigBee endeavours to address multiple low energy wireless solutions within health, home and building automation, along with a number of ‘coming soon’ applications. More recently, the ZigBee Alliance was endorsed by the Continua Health Alliance (continuaalliance.org), as it was suggested that ZigBee has “superior power efficiency and networking capabilities” (ZigBee Enters Health Care Market, Incisor July 2009). Nonetheless, it has been suggested that the technology isn’t as prolific as the ZigBee Alliance seems to suggest (zigbee.org). Likewise, some still argue that ZigBee continues to suffer from coexistence and interoperability issues which are plaguing many of its member companies.

The basic premise of any wireless product is to offer coexistence and interoperability with multiple manufacturers, but some reports have indicated that this simply doesn’t happen with ZigBee and ZigBee PRO or, at the very least, that some manufacturers are experiencing issues with what is perceived to be a proprietary technology rather than an industry recognised standard. Arguably controversial, and further heated by accusations from antagonists suggesting that the Alliance has self-declared the technology as a standard, yet it is still to be recognised by the IEC, ISO and so on. What some of you may not know is that ZigBee comprises two significant components, which make up its current solution and technology. The first is the radio, which is based on the IEEE 802.15.4 standard; however, the majority of ZigBee’s technology is founded within a software protocol stack that sits on top of the radio – a fact that is often misunderstood and the mainstay upon which ZigBee’s IP is invested.

What’s that blip on our radar?
So, what brings ZigBee to our attention this month? The current blip on our short-range radar, is ZigBee’s most recent announcement (June 2009, zigbee.org) of its Green Power offering – a prophecy perhaps of an imminent bitter harvest. Having been featured within Incisor for two consecutive months now, we could speculate that the ZigBee Alliance’s marketing machine must be doing something right, right? Yes, the ZigBee Alliance announced a new feature set, namely the ZigBee Green Power specification, which is planned to be completed circa end of 2009. We pestered the Alliance for additional information and perhaps a sneak preview, but they were keeping their cards close to their chest. Nevertheless, the Alliance’s Kevin Schader, Director of Communications (and the PR group) was very supportive and provided a better perspective of the new feature set, albeit a helicopter view, as the scope was very new.

However, before we begin to broach the nature of the controversy that ensued following their announcement, let’s fill in some blanks for those who might be new to this particular topic. It seems traditional, as part of our ‘saving the world’ mantra, to throw a little ‘green’ into the product portfolio – after all it’s been the colour populating most of our headlines at Incisor over the past few months. Both classic Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are power hungry technologies and therefore often raise ‘green’ issues, but, then again, they do offer very different applications to those afforded by ZigBee. In more recent news, we have seen both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth strive to become greener in their applications and technologies. In the low power domain, a number of companies offer low energy solutions, which directly compete with ZigBee; for example, Z-Wave (from zen-sys.com) and EnOcean (enocean.com), which employs a number of clever energy harvesting techniques that date back to the early 1990s (EnOcean technology emerged from the Siemens group, where the spin-off company that became EnOcean GmbH had previously invented the technology). But ZigBee already boasts a low power theme and has proudly done so since its inception; however, with its Green Power specification it offers something a little different and this is where the controversy begins.

EnOcean is synonymous with energy harvesting
EnOcean is primarily the proponent company offering energy harvesting techniques and commercial solutions in over 100,000 buildings. The technology dates back to early 1990s where Siemens originally conceived the technology and, with over a decade’s experience, the company has accumulated numerous patents that not only detail techniques, but extend to some fundamental applications, several of which are publicly available on their website (see enocean.com/en/products-technology, courtesy of Graham Martin, Chairman, EnOcean Alliance). At Incisor, we also became privy to other numerous patents, which baffled us somewhat as to how ZigBee could possibly move forward with any energy harvesting solution whilst EnOcean had it so well-covered and protected. So, we caught up with Graham Martin, EnOcean’s Alliance Chairman who couldn’t publicly offer us any comment, although he did support his perspective on the issue with some comprehensive reference material.

In starting to write this story we made several assumptions based on initial information, but looking more closely at the press releases and following up on a number of pertinent questions to the ZigBee Alliance with a ‘pull no punches’ stance, we eventually arrived at a very different conclusion. Inevitably, we were caught up in the furore of the ZigBee Alliance venturing into developing energy harvesting technology and trampling all over EnOcean’s well-established IP territory. Crikey, it’s all too easy to wag the proverbial finger, as was initially the case with ZigBee’s new Green Power specification, where the Alliance allegedly purported energy harvesting techniques, offering a new generation of batteryless ZigBee products; something which was ringing a familiar bell – reminding us perhaps of the very same energy harvesting techniques first presented by EnOcean and quite clearly now a bone of contention between the two companies.

IP infringement – that’s just suicide!
Neither the ZigBee Alliance, nor any other company for that matter, could afford a battle in court surrounding IP infringement – no-one would be that stupid, right? But let’s take a closer look at the Alliance’s press release: dated, June 29, 2009 (also available on its website) which states “The ZigBee Alliance, ... today announced development of the ZigBee Green Power feature set to establish a global standard technology for self-powered devices operating through energy harvesting techniques. These devices will communicate seamlessly with existing ZigBee and ZigBee PRO networks and will enable maintenance free, environmentally friendly products that eliminate the need for wires and batteries.” Let’s translate this into English!

The first point in the release is the definition of a new feature set, which will establish a global standard for self-powering devices – doesn’t sound like anyone is developing any new technology here! When we asked Alliance execs to clarify, they intimated that their software protocol stack, the part of the ZigBee offering that they have heavily invested in, would be modified to support energy-harvesting-enabled devices. Eh? What? What did we miss? Surely, you’re developing new technology and techniques that are going to conflict with existing IP, right? Well, apparently, not! Instead, Kevin Schader, Director of Communications, ZigBee Alliance confirms “ZigBee Green Power is an enhancement to the ZigBee and ZigBee PRO [protocol] stacks.” Schader continues to explain, “It will allow energy harvesting devices, regardless of manufacturer, to join a ZigBee network.”

What, another protocol stack?
Naturally, many antagonists would be raising some inevitable issues regarding another change to the protocol stack, as ZigBee has already suffered from some backwards incompatibility problems with its early stacks. But, with the delivery of its new feature set, it’s certainly going to be one to watch. Schader was quick to remark “ZigBee Green Power is backward compatible with existing ZigBee devices and networks.” Presumably, the Alliance can’t afford another faux-pas whilst maintaining and promoting a technology to a diverse market. It seems the ZigBee Alliance is working towards some kind of wireless utopia in enabling its devices to extend and connect with energy-harvesting-enabled devices. Dare we say, it’s offering an outstretched arm to technologies such as EnOcean?

It seems that many analysts initially reacted to ZigBee’s press release with the attitude that it was nothing less than a corporate suicide note, but let’s recall an old saying, “there is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary” (Brendan Behan). Was lack of tenacity and ability to focus on anything other than the PR ‘headline’ reason enough for others to wonder if ZigBee was writing theirs? It seems a shallow pool for Zigbee’s PR to drown in. Nonetheless, when actually taking the time to read the press release in full, alongside unequivocal support from the Alliance and applying a generous measure of good common sense it seems ZigBee’s Green Power feature set is merely an enhancement to their protocol stack which, in turn, the Alliance hopes will support a global ecosystem of multiple products from multiple manufacturers. Anyhow, we shall be watching ZigBee’s evolution of its Green Power offering very closely, along with monitoring EnOcean’s reaction.

You see, all this wireless stuff can be exciting and is certainly not for the faint hearted!

by Dean Anthony Gratton

Click here to download the issue where this article appears

Vince Holton interview: Launching the Wavenis Open Standards Alliance

vholton@incisor.tv (Vince Holton) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:55:00 +0000

Montpellier, France –based Coronis is a wireless solutions provider and the inventor of Wavenis, a highly optimized, ultra low power (ULP) wireless technology for Machine to Machine (M2M) and Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) applications. The company was founded in 2000 by former executives of Itron, a company generally accepted to be one of the world’s top providers of intelligent metering, data collection and utility software solutions.

In June of 2007, Coronis became part of the Elster Group, the world's largest metering company and supplier of high quality integrated metering and utilization solutions.

Incisor first profiled Coronis in February 2005. You can read that first profile here. At the time we commented that this was a company to watch, and we have listened to our own advice – we are still watching them. Recently, Coronis has moved onto a new stage with the establishment of the Wavenis Open Standard Alliance (Wavenis-OSA), working alongside France Telecom.

We decided it was time that we profiled Coronis again, and so we met with Christophe Dugas and Geoffrey Riggs of Coronis, and Gabriel Chegaray of Orange/France Telecom.

VH: For those readers that didn’t read the earlier profile, what is Wavenis, and where does it fit into the wireless ecosystem?

CD: Wavenis is the technology around which Coronis builds the majority of its wireless OEM platforms, finished products and customizable vertical solutions. The Wavenis Communications Platform embraces the Media Access Controller (MAC), Physical layer (PHY) and the Logical Link Control (LLC). The technology operates worldwide in major license-free ISM bands (868, 915 and 433 MHz) and is ideal for low-traffic, 2-way data & M2M applications from 4.8 to 100 kbps (typically 19.2 kbps). To begin with, we defined Wavenis, for standardization, as the base communications platform, with no application stacks. Coronis as well as our customers such as Schneider Electric have implemented their own application stacks on top of Wavenis wireless platform. Schneider used KNX and Coronis our Wavenis application stack. Now, we are looking at the possibility of providing “services” for applications such as smart metering, smart cities, home building & automation, and others as determined by Wavenis-OSA members.
We are often compared with other ULP wireless technologies, but in reality Wavenis provides significant range and power advantages over IEEE 802.15.4 and other so-called ultra-low-power wireless technologies. Although Wavenis operates in the same market as technologies such as ZigBee, Z-Wave, Wireless MBus for example, we did not set out to compete with ZigBee or other low power wireless technologies. Wavenis has been created with the aim of providing a unique, standardised solution.
Alongside other communication technologies, such as Bluetooth and the cellular networks, Wavenis enables Coronis customers and partners to innovate in their own markets with wireless devices. With our partners, we have deployed several million Wavenis-based devices around the world. One of those partners is France Telecom, and specifically Orange, its cellular network operator. Orange has worked with us since 2005, but has now stepped up its commitment to the partnership with Coronis by becoming the second founding partner in the Wavenis-OSA. The Alliance has been established to promote the global use and enhancement of Wavenis. Coronis and Orange recently staged the first major event for the Wavenis-OSA in Paris, France, and we were extremely impressed at the level of interest that was shown. So much so that in the last few days before the event the venue had to be changed in order to accommodate the number of people that had registered to attend. Don’t forget, this is in the middle of a global economic recession!

We are looking outward as well as inward. The Wavenis-OSA plans to collaborate with major industry standards organisations as well as with other proprietary initiatives. Connections will be established with groups such as the Bluetooth SIG, ZigBee and Konnex, as well as with proprietary initiatives such as Z-Wave, io-homecontrol, and independent organizations, as well as with international standardization bodies such as the IEEE, ETSI, EPC Global, ISAD, LPRA, HART, ISA-SP100 and so on.

GC : And why is Orange so interested? Well, network operators such as Orange are very keen to broaden their portfolios and to develop business opportunities outside of the voice markets. There is great potential in the M2M and industrial automation markets, particularly as there is now strong crossover with the world of IP. Orange has a strong interest in ULP and long range technology. We have been a member of the ZigBee Alliance since 2004, and we still are, but Wavenis is very attractive to us due to its very low power consumption combined with long range, and the fact that it is now becoming a standardised solution.

Historically, Wavenis’ strength in the wireless metering market was one of the main reasons we partnered with Coronis, but we see that Wavenis also has real potential in smart cities, home security, track and trace and building automation systems due to the extended range that it offers.

Christophe is correct when he suggests that the Wavenis-OSA event in Paris was an important milestone. If we had needed any extra confirmation that we were doing the right thing, the level of interest shown at the first event proved conclusively that this solution has a lot of potential. More than 120 people attended, and they came from a broad cross-section of industries, including semiconductor companies, utilities, meter manufacturers, and - despite the fact that the event was staged by Orange - other network operators as well as direct competitors to Elster.

The message that came back to us was that these people are looking for a global solution, and that they also wanted more than just a radio. They are looking for us to extend activity into the upper layers. Which confirms that it is the right time for us to be looking at profile/service development.

VH: The Wavenis Specification only defines the wireless connectivity platform. What is the thinking behind this?

GC: The first focus has been to deliver the base connectivity platform – the PHY and MAC, which has been done. That has allowed customers to get up and running, and several million Wavenis devices have now been deployed in real-world installations. The next phase is to make Wavenis a standards-based solution. That is where we are today, and that is what the Wavenis-OSA is now working on. The goal for this phase is to help many companies across the industry begin to develop a range of interoperable products. Once this has been achieved, we can reach out to the wider, bigger market.

And momentum is now growing. Beyond this, we consider that Internet Protocol (IP) could be the right way to go for layer 3 and are prepared to put significant effort to examine the possibility and making it a reality.

VH: What is the background to the creation of the Wavenis-OSA, and what stage has the organisation reached?

GR: From the very beginning, all the way back to when Wavenis was conceived, it was always the plan to develop a technology that could be opened up to the world. The Coronis founders were realistic about the challenges of taking Wavenis technology to the world market. They knew that the chances of global success were slim if Wavenis was ring-fenced and therefore remained a proprietary solution, or if they chose to blaze the trail alone.

Building products, industrialising them, and making the core technology a global solution takes more than the resources of one relatively small and new company. Therefore, the decision was made at the outset that the technology would be opened up, and other, strong partners would be encouraged to join with Coronis to nurture the technology and to present it to the world as a standard-based offering. This is the thinking behind the creation of the Wavenis-OSA.

This was also one of the key factors in Elster’s decision to acquire Coronis – Coronis’ value and the potential success of the technology were much greater as a result of opening up the technology to other companies.

The timing of the creation of the Wavenis-OSA was right, too. Coronis has been working closely with Orange since 2005, and the decision to incorporate the Wavenis-OSA was made in 2007. The background work was done, and the organisation was incorporated in June 2008 as a not for profit, independent legal entity in the state of Delaware in the USA. We chose to incorporate in the USA, by the way, because the laws governing such organisations in the USA are more ‘supple’.

So that is where we are today. The legal work has been done and the Wavenis-OSA meets all statutory requirements. The foundations to build from are all in place.

GC: It’s true about the timing being right. You could see that from the over-subscribed attendance at the Wavenis event in Paris at the end of May. Large companies move slowly, but it was apparent from the interest shown that many of them are preparing their roadmap to enter this market. Speaking for my own company, Orange, I can say that the strong interest shown at the event has boosted the profile of Wavenis technology inside my company, and has under-pinned our commitment to the Wavenis-OSA.

CD: This is true for my company too. By its acquisition of Coronis, Elster Group had already demonstrated its commitment to Wavenis, but I know that the Elster management was also very impressed by the attendance at the event in Paris.

GR: We are not standing still. We are now working to convert the interest we have generated into commitments to the Wavenis-OSA, and there will be further events, including M2M Connected World, which took place in Chicago, USA in June, and Metering Europe, which takes place in Barcelona, Spain in October.

VH: How will the relationship work between the two very different companies - Coronis/Elster and Orange/France Telecom – on the Wavenis-OSA board of directors?

GR: It is true that on the surface these are two very different organisations, and not just in size. However, what we have is a very complimentary relationship and a combined vision of the way forwards. On the Wavenis-OSA board of directors, nobody has any more influence than anybody else, and in practice it is working very well.

GC: The Wavenis-OSA board is the same as any other. It has a mission and a vision. Orange and Coronis bring different expertise in radio technology to the table, but the co-operation is mutually-beneficial. There are nine seats on the board, with Coronis and Orange occupying two of them. We are now looking to add seven other companies to fill the remaining board seats, and outside of that there is no limit to the number of companies that can participate at other levels.

VH: The Wavenis–OSA is choosing to make Wavenis an industry standard. Why is this felt to be necessary, and what standards body will you work with?

GC: The market for low-power wireless devices is very fragmented. Much of what is available is proprietary, with all of the caveats that brings with it, and many of the players in the market are start-ups or small companies. Evolving Wavenis into an open standard allows our customers to avoid the pitfalls of dealing with closed-loop technology, where they could be pinning their mission-critical systems to solutions from companies that may or may not succeed. These same proprietary technology suppliers could potentially change technology direction without consideration for the resource and financial commitments that the customer base may have made.

We are targeting the ‘smart city’ market – metering and beyond – and there is just no room here for technology that does not have a secure foundation and a long-term future. The smart city concept starts with metering and extends to services within the city, especially equipment that is not designed to be battery powered. At Orange we looked at the possibility of using ZigBee in this environment, but after extensive research we found that ZigBee is mainly designed to address very local events. As such, it is not suitable for the type of long-distance metering systems that will be part of the ‘smart grid’.

GR: The other major reasons to make Wavenis an open standard are well-established. An open standard solution, which is supported by many suppliers, will always be more credible in the eyes of the customer base, and never more so than when those customers are huge, national or multi-national organisations. It is unlikely that a national utilities company will ever commit itself to a proprietary solution from one supplier – the risk is just too great. Beyond that, opening up a technology so that it is supported by many suppliers means that there is also a wide range of interoperable devices that can be implemented across a network. This means that the market is competitive, which is good for the customer, and it also means that if one company’s product proves to be unreliable, it can be substituted for another. These are all key benefits – or maybe even requirements – for the large companies that are implementing smart city solutions.

VH: Which direction is the alliance heading in as far as the IPR agreement is concerned – royalty free or with royalty payments – and is this likely to form a stumbling block as the alliance goes forward?

GC: The core Wavenis technology is royalty free. IP for technology beyond the MAC and PHY is licensable, but has to be declared. We hope, as we go forward, that Wavenis-OSA members will also chose to make their IP freely available.

CD: That is right. We want to be able to move forwards with a royalty free comms stack. Sharing IP will benefit the technology and therefore the members of the Wavenis-OSA.

VH: Wavenis is focused towards M2M, low power, long range, low radio traffic, low data rate use-cases. This takes the Wavenis Alliance into competition with relatively established competing technologies such as ZigBee, Z-Wave, Bluetooth low energy and - coming from a different direction - energy-harvesting technology from the EnOcean Alliance. EnOcean has gone beyond low-power, to no-power. How will Wavenis compete in this challenging environment?

CD: From the very early days, we have sought to co-operate with other standards. We made a proposal to the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) several years ago to co-develop a low-power technology solution, but there were some elements that weren’t deemed 100% suitable. Meanwhile, Nokia came along with Wibree. That has been used as the basis for the Bluetooth low energy offering, but the end-result is still very short-range.

Now we have Konnex, ZigBee, Z-Wave, EnOcean, Wireless M-BUS, io-homecontrol as well as Bluetooth low energy and various other proprietary solutions all seemingly targeting the same market. But Wavenis has the two key advantages of longer range and lower power. We have had a number of cases of customers choosing Wavenis over ZigBee, for example, as a direct result of the long range, low power benefits, plus what is perceived to be greater robustness. Range seems to be the main problem for ZigBee, and we are aware that a new working group has been created within the IEEE – 802.15.4G – to look at a new PHY and the related necessary MAC arrangement, in order to address smart grid market requirements. Using the ‘Smart Utility Network’ as a working title, they are looking to address the long-range, smart grid market. This is a strong sign that 802.15.4 is not the answer. Coronis and Orange are members of the 802.15.4G group and are contributing ideas.

There will continue to be many solutions competing in this market, many of them operating in the 2.4GHz ISM Band. This is a frequency band that undoubtedly offers a global solution, but practice shows that for this type of technology, the lower frequency bands offer a better range. In the M2M market, and for carriers looking to deploy smart city networks, Wavenis’ long-range capability and installed base of millions of units make it a very serious candidate.

GR: We are also open to new ideas and ways to develop Wavenis in this competitive environment. Energy harvesting, which is the cornerstone of EnOcean’s offering, is the Holy Grail of wireless solutions providers. So yes, we are investigating energy-harvesting as a future enhancement of Wavenis technology, as well as other options including using solar panels to provide power for rechargeable batteries.

CD: It is true, energy-harvesting will be important, but there is a restriction. All of the current technologies are capable of two-way communication, although in the case of existing energy harvesting technologies such as EnOcean, this is very limited due to the very small amount of power that is available. This prevents the use of energy-harvesting solutions in some applications, and these are applications where Wavenis currently shines. For example, where expanded two-way communication is needed, or where the system is using mesh networking, self-healing or self-routing techniques.

We also believe that the Wavenis solution will be very cost-effective. Coronis has invested in and developed a system-on-chip (SoC) solution to sell alongside the existing package of silicon, PCB and IP. It is down to all of the partners selling Wavenis’ based systems to set their own prices, and these must of course be competitive if they wish to do business.

VH: So, what is the future roadmap for Wavenis and the Wavenis Alliance?

GC: We are planning that the first spec for radio connectivity will be available by the end of 2009, and so far we are on track to hit this target. Then, during 2010, we plan to complete the spec for the routing layer, and through our representatives we are co-operating and synching with the work that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is doing in the area of wireless sensor networks.
We will also allow companies joining the Wavenis-OSA to contribute to and steer the way that the technology and the standard is developed. Many of these companies are not wireless experts, though they will bring new knowledge and expertise to the table.

CD: As the organisation grows we will add working groups to look at specific areas of development. At the moment we are forming a Service Application Working Group, and others will follow. At the networking layer we are looking to integrate the IP layer, while Coronis, Orange and Cisco are co-operating over routing.

There is no question that in the long term, Wavenis and the Internet Protocol will come together, and the Wavenis-OSA will continue to develop the technology so that is becomes a widely-adopted standard for long-range, lower power wireless network systems.