Planet Analog DesignLine Blog
Product proliferation is driving me crazy—and we do it, too.
Bill Schweber
12/7/2011 11:16 AM EST
Product choice is good, there's little question about that. When you can select from among a wide variety of products in a given category—whether at the supermarket, consumer-electronics vendor, or book source—you're likely to find something that you want, at a price you feel is OK, and the competition among products works to the consumer's benefit.
But at the same time, it can become overwhelming. I recently was looking for a basic digital camera ($100 range) to replace a Canon Sureshot (8 Mpixels) which was operating erratically after several years of hard life. I decided to start with Canon again, since I assumed that their newer models would likely have a similar user interface, form factor, and functions as the one I had.
I checked out the Canon site and was soon overwhelmed with the number of basic cameras and families they had. For some of them, their niche was obvious, such as ruggedized or water-resistant. But for others, I could not see the actual differences, except by a careful read-through of the product specifications. I soon felt like the fellow in the Max Ernst painting to the left, Man's head puzzled by the flight of a non-Euclidean fly.
I don’t mean to pick on Canon here. I found out that it's the same when you look for a GPS unit: so many families and so many products within each family, and that's just from a single vendor. Some are clearly targeted (such as for hikers or bikers) but still, an overwhelming set of choice remained. What I really needed from the vendors was a decision tree or selection flowchart, and most don't have that.
I suppose somehow it makes sense to have so many models each with their own twist; I certainly don't understand the nuances of production and distribution in the consumer-product business. But you do have to wonder if the cost of having all the different production runs and sub-runs, bills of materials, labeling, packaging, documentation, order-entry set-up, and support wipes out whatever market and profit benefit there is to having so many similar products. We engineers would never do anything so foolish, right?
Or maybe we would. Look at the product portfolio of any major analog IC vendor, for example, and you'll see an astonishingly wide and complex array of offerings for basic building blocks, such as op amps or converters. Yes, each one has its place and role, but still, it's a lot to look at and decide among.
Some components, for example, are truly outstanding in one or two parameters, and are "merely" pretty good in others. In contrast, other offerings may not be especially outstanding in any one specification, but are very, very good in many of them. These are complex and subtle tradeoffs that the designer has to make when working the BOM when judging which one to use. Fortunately, most vendors offer selection guides to help you narrow down your choices, based on your needs and priorities.
Do you find product proliferation in consumer end-products to be a problem? Has it ever caused you to just "give up" because you couldn't decide which model to get? ◊
|
|
|
|
|
Rick DeMeis
12/7/2011 12:56 PM EST
Hey Bill, my head spins when I look at the mobile "phone" choices now available!
Sign in to Reply
WKetel
12/21/2011 3:00 PM EST
Today we find lots of similar products, many of them very difficult to use, some of them quite poorly designed, and all with more and more features. These features are added all in the name of product differentiation, which is the marketing department answer to a call for improved product quality. Note that I define a products quality as being able to deliver the required performance reliably for an acceptable amount of time. Of course, durability and "robustness" are terms very seldom mentioned in product descriptions.
Sign in to Reply
sharps_eng
12/7/2011 5:17 PM EST
I have always thought that we in electronics were spoilt by the effective search tools and catalogues served up by our vendors and distributors. Parametric searches and comparisons, Now it seems that with changes in attitude among manufacturers, thinning distributor margins and dumbing down of component-engineering disciplines, we are getting the same lo-grade service that regular consumers get.
No longer do Europe's RS and Farnell have functioning search on their website because the database data has been entered so badly it isn't even wrong. Typically, whoever types in the data, doesn't understand the meaning of the terms used to describe components, or even units like mm, let alone uF or uH!
To their credit, Digikey and Mouser seemed to have hung onto some 'old skool' technical knowledge deep down in their cataloguing. But how long that will last, who know?
There are some paid-for component selection services, true, and I would definitely recommend subscribing to one of those, as in most manufacturing operations, the annual cost could be recouped by one sensible component decision.
Like they do (or did) with JEDEC packaging, manufacturers should organize their data into standardized form and supply the distributors with windows into it. Eliminate data entry errors, make it possible for engineers to select on genuine specifications, and furthermore, select reasonable second sources. That helps everyone, useless products can go end-of-life and directions for future development can be identified and managed more effectively.
Sign in to Reply
SiliconExpert
12/9/2011 8:16 PM EST
Definitely agreed that a standardized approach to data from electronic part manufacturers will go a long way to help engineers when making part selection decisions. However, not all manufacturers might be inclined to be compared on a normalized playing field when comparisons of specs are concerned.
In order to leverage and protect their distribution channels, branding and familiarity in the industry, some manufacturers might not wish to be compared apples to apples across the market. Even though engineers are well aware of the specs they require and can understand & calculate the differences between different, yet exactly same part package names, units and reliability results, well entrenched manufacturers are not going to jump at the opportunity to make it easy for all engineers to compare their company to smaller niche players.
This is why we might never see the industry taking a standardized approach to data. An approved part manufacturer for an OEM has gone through a ton of hassle to get there and has no real incentive to allow itself to be compared to smaller manufacturers.
There are sites such as http://www.datasheets.com (disclosure: I work for SiliconExpert, the data provider behind the site) that normalize the data in the industry and allow for part comparisons & parametric searches to occur on the same playing field. A lot of effort goes behind analyzing the varied specs & packages of different manufacturers to compare their products on-the-fly and allow for standardized parametric searches to occur as well. Distributor websites also do a great job at allowing parametric searches (if not direct comparisons), but sites like datasheets.com go beyond the catalog of any single distributor and give the engineers a larger view of the parts in the market and the ability to compare parts.
Sign in to Reply
prabhakar_deosthali
12/8/2011 2:22 AM EST
The same experience I had when I went to buy a refrigerator. Until a few years back buying a refrigerator was fairly a simple task - maximum 3 to 4 sizes , Single door/ Double door option and some color variants.
Now when I went in search of the replacement of my old refrigerator, there were literally 50 to 60 different models from each of the known manufactures. For every 5 additional liters of storage volume there was a different model.
Finally I left to my wife who made her selection based upon the color shade she liked!
I just can't imagine how much of an effort these manufacturers must be putting to design, produce, service and support so many models. I feel most of it is unnecessary.
Sign in to Reply
Rod Dalitz
12/10/2011 12:46 PM EST
Reading many "Made by Monkeys" stories, it is clear that nowhere near ENOUGH effort is put into design. Too many new products turn out to have learned no lessons from years of production.
Sign in to Reply
agk
12/8/2011 4:36 AM EST
I enter all datas in a spread sheet and compare. Finally i decide based on their merrits. befoe doing this home work i choose 2 main factors like service back up and warranty period and one more manufacturer brand reputation.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
12/8/2011 5:53 PM EST
It's a double-edged sword for the CE manufacturer. If they offer too few models at too few price points, they leave an open gap that a competitor can easily fill. If they offer too many models with too many feature options, then yes, consumers can be confused and overwhelmed.
A side-by-side comparison option on their website goes a long way toward resolving confusion and helping consumers decide.
Sign in to Reply
antedeluvian
12/9/2011 1:20 PM EST
I often get the feeling that there are very similar models around a particular feature set so the only one model is sold at say, Best Buy, a different number for an almost identical product sold at say, Amazon. I feel that this is so you find it much harder to get an "apples to apples" price comparason so that the retailer does not have to honour its lowest price guarantee.
Sign in to Reply
DutchUncle
12/9/2011 1:44 PM EST
See Barry Schwartz on "The Paradox of Choice"
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bschwar1/Sci.Amer.pdf
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/03/01/040301crbo_books
Sign in to Reply
DBG2
12/9/2011 2:49 PM EST
We've discovered through trial-and-error that having more product levels for our software product helps sell the high-end product.
Yes, adding cheaper versions measurably increases sales of our expensive version.
As far as I can figure people are attracted to the lower-price version, then talk themselves up to the full-up version.
So I think it's all about human psychology.
Sign in to Reply
WKetel
12/9/2011 9:04 PM EST
I would suspect that "DBG2" has at his organizations site some quite good descriptions of each of the products and what they do for the user. Probably the expensive one is the one that provides all of the functions that the users want. CadSoft's "Eagle" PCB software is available in a number of flavors, depending on what functions the user is willing to pay for,(needs?). My version was very cheap, but does what I need, if only I could figure out how. Some day I may want some of those other features, if I can make it work. Then I will pay for those features.
Sign in to Reply
devassocx
12/10/2011 2:30 AM EST
I have been wanting a notebook computer for quite
some time...not necessarily a super high end one.
Every time I look on the various manufacturer's websites I am just overloaded with the huge amount
of offerings and the difficulty in comparing them.
So in my case, I have not purchased one.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
12/10/2011 6:04 PM EST
I've found that what really helps, a lot, is if the buyer is informed (informs himself?) on the pedigree, family history, call it what you like, of the products he's trying to compare.
Strange as it might seem, products like refrigerators, washers, driers, even among different brands, are not as different as a lot of people might think. The same holds true for car models, especially from a given manufacturer. Sometimes you have to talk to the repair techs to get the full scoop.
I remember many years ago now, for instance, at the clueless outrage from car owners who discovered that their Oldsmobiles often had "Chevy engines" in them. Perhaps if they had informed themselves on the engines GM built at that time, and on the true quality of each one, these owners (a) would have made a more informed choice when they bought their car to begin with, and (b) would have been elated to discover their Olds had a Chevy V-8 in it!
The important thing is, especially for people with engineering backgrounds and/or an engineer's mentality, to discount, even ignore, sales hype. You need to dig into the design pedigree, the product history. I've bfound that if you do that, then the huge amount of apparent choice will dwindle. Many of the diffreences among models end up being nothing but cosmetics, or the occasional extra minor feature or two, that you may or may not need.
About digital cameras: the number of pixels is one aspect, but the size of the sensor is equally important. Fewer pixels from a larger sensor can easily beat the image quality of more pixels in a smaller sensor. It's a matter of "lens bandwidth," in essence. The ability of a lens to create enough contrast in a tiny amount of sensor area.
Sign in to Reply
seaEE
12/10/2011 7:11 PM EST
Which brings up the question, what companies are making the sensors and what sensors are considered the best quality? Do Nikon and Canon make their own sensors?
Sign in to Reply
EREBUS
12/10/2011 8:36 PM EST
From my perspective, technology has been moving at this rapid pace since the 1980's. All you can do is pick a device that meets your NEEDS and forget about the next thing out, that is better and cheaper. Keep focused on what you need, not on what's next. You can't keep up with the Jones, so don't try. Tech envy is a costly disease that will just drain your pocket book.
Sign in to Reply
TFC-SD
12/11/2011 12:05 AM EST
Marketers say when a person has more than seven choices they become irrational in how they make their choices. I could make illusions about engineering employment, but will not.
Sign in to Reply
zeeglen
12/11/2011 6:47 PM EST
Maybe the marketers believe that more "brands" a particular company manufactures the larger their market share. Typical examples - margarine, laundry detergent.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
12/16/2011 12:34 PM EST
I have the same issue when choosing PIC processors from Microchip. They have a pretty comprehensive parametric search engine on their site, but there are just so many permutations that it makes my head swim.
Often the choice ends up coming down to features that aren't all that germane to the design. If I made really complex designs that used virtually all of the peripherals, maybe I'd have fewer choices. As it is, I'll often have half a dozen parts that will work and it's a random choice between those parts.
Sign in to Reply
RWatkins
12/21/2011 2:13 PM EST
I often tell my junior that in engineering there are hundreds of ways to solve most sets of design requirements. The key is NOT to choose the absolute BEST design, which wastes time and resources, but to choose a workable and good design with parts that are readily available and will do well in the customer's application(s) while delivering value. Please remember that the plethora of commercial components and products available are often rapidly obsolete. What you observe as too many permutations and combinations of whatever product may be merely the result of
a. someone looked for a reasonable time period and did not find what they wanted so one was designed to meet their needs, or
b. parts were expected to go obsolete on an existing design so a new design was generated using newer parts to prevent a break in product availability and keep up with the competition (the cameras comment above?), or
c. a manufacturer develops a line of components (the PIC processors comment above?) and manufactures variants with price points to support their customers who may be heavily driven by BOM cost, or
d. one manufacturer tries to "keep up with the Jones" and makes a nearly identical product to his competitor.
Sign in to Reply