Doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 1...

doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Slide 1 Hewlett Packard, Sony Electronics

Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)Project: IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Submission Title: [Market needs for a High Speed WPAN specification]

Date Submitted: [13 September 2004]

Source: Bob Huang, Sony Electronics, Inc. Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

Contact: [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract: [This presentation provides a CE company perspective of the need for a high speed WPAN specification.]

Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by 802.15.

Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Overview

• What does UWB offer to CE? CE offer to UWB?

• Down Selection Status• How to make progress• A CE view of a two PHY standard

Market and applications

• Conclusion


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

CE Company View

What does UWB offer?

• High data rate– With upward potential

• Low cost

• Low power consumption

• Small form factor

• Ideal for peer to peer and hoc connectionsand

• Wide industry support to adopt


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

CE Company View (2)

Why are high date rate, low cost, low power and industry support important?

• Consider the applications– Medium File transfer and internet access works well

with 802.11• Access point may require further X-mit distance than what a

direct device to device connection would.– Multimedia streaming may be a key market area

• For WPAN range applications• For personal and portable devices

– Transferring large data files, especially multimedia– Syncing or interacting with fixed devices (PC’s, displays, etc.)


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

CE Company View (3)

• Bottom line: CE could be a good market for UWB

• But, what do CE companies think of a two PHY standard?


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Down Selection Status

• 802.15.3a PHY down selection is not progressing fast

• The candidate approaches are fundamentally different– Can not be merged


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

To Make Progress

• Some suggest resolution– Using ‘common signaling mode’

• To allow the two PHYs to share spectrum nicely or avoid each other.

– To allow both approaches in the standard: “let the market decide”

• This presentation provides a CE perspective on allowing both approaches and “letting the market decide”


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Reasoning for One Standard

Reasoning is straight forward:

• Faster market ramp-up – Pushing unit cost down– More devices to connect to and to share data with

• Interoperability between manufactured products

• No market/consumer confusion


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Faster Market Ramp-up

What is the thinking behind faster ramp-up?

– There are two ways to approach a market• Market pull • Technology push


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Market pull

• The value of technology is recognized • Consumers are demanding products with that

technology• Generally offers fundamentally new capability that

consumers want• Right “style” that consumers want

– Not technology related

• For consumer electronics use of UWB, the market must be built


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Technology push

• New capability – new functionality

• Will enhance existing applications

– Piggy-back on existing application

• Will give rise to new applications

• Consumer demand must be created


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

UWB CE Market position

• First, the CE market– Is not one homogenous market

– Is many different product markets

• Therefore, UWB is both a pull market and a technology push market, depending where you look– For cut-the-cord applications, UWB is market pull

– For WPAN applications, UWB is technology push

– Some devices will be both or migrate to both


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Cut-the-Cord Market PullThese applications are:

• Existing (not new) • UWB adds convenience, not adding fundamental capability

– One time convenience: avoid running the cord– Many time convenience: avoid repeated physical connect and

disconnect– Eliminate physical card exchange

• Highly cost sensitive market– UWB cost must be small cost add-on

• Even more cost sensitive if the market fragments.

• Use paired devices


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Cut-the-Cord Market Pull

These applications are :

• Existing (not new) • Made more convenient with UWB, not enhanced on

fundamental capability– One time convenience: avoid running the cord– Many time convenience: avoid repeated physical connect and

disconnect– Eliminate physical card exchange

• Highly cost sensitive– UWB cost must be small cost add-on

• Configured as paired devices.


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Cut-the-Cord Market Push

These applications

• Are based on adding wireless connectivity to existing applications


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

WPAN technology push

• WPAN is much more than cut-the-cord. It is– Connectivity to and between new devices

• Devices not connected with a cord• Interoperability between devices of different manufacture is

important

– Short range wireless peer-to-peer networking– New applications for personal entertainment devices

• Consumers want to operate a networked wireless device with a variety of other devices of different manufacture


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Some Characteristics

• Cut-the-cord UWB– Existing applications

– Point-to-point (paired)

– Adds convenience

– Cost sensitive

• WPAN UWB– New applications

– Ad hoc connectivity

– Adds fundamental new capability

– Cost sensitive

Both are cost sensitive(Some devices will fit in both)

Two categories:


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

The Common Link

One standard PHY– Provides the highest possible volumes

==> lowest cost– Provides common and efficient connectivity

between devices of different manufacture– Eliminates consumer confusion about which

UWB device to buy– Eliminates interoperability problems


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Market/Consumer Confusion

• With two PHYs, the consumer– Needs to choose which PHY to use

• Which PHY is better?– How can the consumer choose if “experts” can not agree?

• On what criteria will they base a choice?

– Needs to stick to that choice when buying new equipment in the future.• Or lose interoperability• Or may interfere with installed solutions of other

type.


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Market/Consumer Confusion

• With two PHYs

– The consumer can not decide• He will choose, but he will not decide

– Winning technology may be• First to market• Gained by spending more on advertising

But the consumer cannot win:• Some can not interoperate• Some must switch technology (to the winner)


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

Development Chain Confusion

• Initial Technology Education – Vendors to device suppliers.• Market Assessment – UWB overall attractive, fractured

segments harder to justify• Design – multiple designs, tougher to integrate, more

regulatory testing, industrial design and antenna placement.• IP Sourcing – more flavors to source.• Manufacturing – More confusion in inventory, raw and end

product.• The Channel – More SKU’s, tradeoffs on shelf space• The Sale – Confusion to the customer and sales people.• Support – Higher support cost, wrong type

Bob Huang

Mark: 1) In the last item (Support), I deleted interference. I believe the proposal is to use the common signaling. If it is used, interference may not be an issue?2) I droped the “etc” in the last item as I mot sure what can be cited.


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0

Submission

September 2004

CE Manufactures’ PerspectiveConclusions• Single PHY presents no problems• Multi-PHYs are another story

– Bad customer experience – interoperability.– Higher development cost

• Which PHY to choose• Common signaling adds cost

– Higher consumer education costs• When will this work; when will it not work• Higher product returns (misunderstanding)

– Slower development of networked applications• Not knowing which devices can communication with which devices

– Lower volume expectation, therefore less push

Doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 1...

Documents

Transcript of Doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 1...