TTM of MB-OFDM Products

1
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 rob
ert.huang_at_am.sony.com mark.fidler_at_hp.com
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.
2
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

3
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 connections
• and
• Wide industry support to adopt

4
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 (PCs,
  displays, etc.)

5
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?

6
Down Selection Status

• 802.15.3a PHY down selection is not progressing
  fast
• The candidate approaches are fundamentally
  different
• Can not be merged

7
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

8
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

9
Faster Market Ramp-up

• What is the thinking behind faster ramp-up?
• There are two ways to approach a market
• Market pull
• Technology push

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
Cut-the-Cord Market Pull

• These 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

14
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.

15
Cut-the-Cord Market Push

• These applications
• Are based on adding wireless connectivity to
  existing applications

16
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

17
Some Characteristics
Two categories

• 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)
18
The Common Link

• One standard PHY
• Provides the highest possible volumes
  gt lowest cost
• Provides common and efficient connectivity
  between devices of different manufacture
• Eliminates consumer confusion about which UWB
  device to buy
• Eliminates interoperability problems

19
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.

20
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)

21
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 SKUs, tradeoffs on shelf
  space
• The Sale Confusion to the customer and sales
  people.
• Support Higher support cost, wrong type

22
CE Manufactures Perspective

• Conclusions
• 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