doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 1 Project: IEEE 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 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 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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 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 /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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?

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 6 Down Selection Status a PHY down selection is not progressing fast The candidate approaches are fundamentally different –Can not be merged

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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”

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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.

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 15 Cut-the-Cord Market Push These applications Are based on adding wireless connectivity to existing applications

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 17 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 /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 18 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 /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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.

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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)

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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 SKU’s, tradeoffs on shelf space The Sale – Confusion to the customer and sales people. Support – Higher support cost, wrong type

doc.: IEEE /0410r0 Submission September 2004 Hewlett Packard, Sony ElectronicsSlide 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