Design Article
Standard verses proprietary WLAN solutions could impact handsets
Cedric Paillard, Semiconductor Insights
5/24/2006 5:00 AM EDT
The decreasing cost and increasing performance of silicon RF ICs makes it practical to integrate wireless capabilities into everything, including devices we didn't anticipate being wireless 10 years ago. For example, in Japan, some restaurants use a wireless "doorbell" on the table to call the waitress. In the US, wireless doorbells and thermostats are common, and most use proprietary wireless protocols. Many more applications become possible when multiple devices are networked with each other and/or with the Internet.
A standard should enable already existing markets and foster new ones. In the case of ZigBee, home and building automation is an initial target market and, because we all carry mobile handsets, it's natural to think that handset will need to support ZigBee to interface with other devices in our homes.
The direct consequence of a standard is its ability to reduce the cost/price of a particular solution by using economies of scale. Because those solutions become less expensive, they become more popular, and because they become more popular, they become cheaper, and because they are cheaper they get implemented in more applications.
Philips has deliberately chosen not to put its new technology through the standards process, possibly to avoid being involved in a long political process, but more likely because proprietary solutions enjoy good margin (if they offer a significant value proposition). They usually address a niche market in need of a specific solution that a standard solution doesn't address as well. In the case of Philips, this is the need to connect surround-sound speakers. Philips is launching what it calls an integrated two-chip wireless audio link—radio and baseband IC together—listed at $13 in lots of 10,000 units.
While this doesn't exhibit the highest level of integration we've seen in this market, the idea is to provide a technical solution to consumer electronics manufacturers more in line with their need to maintain high quality audio without wires. If several manufacturers are ready to use this solution, this shows that neither Bluetooth nor Wi-Fi provide the necessary features.
Bluetooth is shipping in millions and therefore provides a lower cost (less than $4 for a standard implementation) but is struggling to support the latency requirements needed for high audio quality. The main reason is that it hasn't been designed for this application. Similarly, ZigBee is a ratified standard, but it's not a static blueprint for all applications in all markets. Z-Wave's low data rate (less than 10 kbits/s) provides added values that are not apparently addressed by ZigBee, which provides up to 250 kbits/s.
For Intel, the number of devices that could be wirelessly connected at less than 10 kbits/s apparently justifies the need for an additional "standard" to ZigBee. But it's safe to assume that 250 kbits/s can also support requirements for 10 kbits/s. In this case, it looks like an arbitrarily split of the market. If there's a need for a specific solution around data rate, why not work with the ZigBee Alliance to give end users a standard look and feel? It's certainly not because one solution has a head start on the other. Even if some suppliers selected one solution, they're likely to request interoperability across the market in a few years. And if they don't ask for it, the market will. Handset makers have been asked to support worldwide access by developing multi-mode, multi-protocol handsets and now working on 4G. It's now just a question of when.
In the case of Philips, the number of surround-sound speakers doesn't necessarily justify a new standard on its own merit. But it's not difficult to see where this technology could be used in the future. A wireless headphone that could work with an iPod, a home entertainment system, and in the car would increase the initial targeted market space. In this case, the need for a specific solution to provide high-quality audio can be justified because the fundamental Bluetooth architecture doesn't support high-quality audio wireless links (mainly due to the latency of the protocol).
Philips’ product announcement specifically targets surround-sound speakers. There's no mention of mobile applications and their low power requirements. However, this announcement validates what many analysts already know, that Bluetooth can support audio, but not high-quality audio. The other issue with Philips’s approach is the number of competing proprietary solutions available, or soon to be available, to support portable high-quality audio.
The questions for cellular handsets include: How much wireless data must be supported to satisfy end users if the industry keeps pumping out ad-hoc standard solutions? Can handset makers and operators become the referee for all the wireless data solutions? Should handset makers define a standard for the end user to provide a similar look and feel and ensure interoperability?
About the author
Cedric Paillard is the vice-president of TECHinsights at Semiconductor Insights. He holds BS and MS degrees in VLSI System Engineering from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. He also has a Bachelor of Engineering from the Ecole Superieure de Technolgie Electrique. Paillard can be reached at cedricp@semiconductor.com.
