A Critical View of Proposed Compromise - Marketing Perspective

1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANS) Submission Title: [A critical view of the proposed compromise – A marketing perspective from customers] Date Submitted: [March 2004] Source: [Mark Fidler] Company [Hewlett Packard] E-mail [mark.fidler@hp.com] Re: [] Abstract: [This presentation takes a look at market requirements and defines who the market is that decides technology] Purpose: [] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual or organization. The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor reserves 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 P802.15.

2. A critical view of the proposed compromise -A marketing perspective from customers- Mark Fidler Mark.Fidler@HP.com Hewlett Packard Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

3. Ad Hoc and Multi Phy • Basis for the compromise was to have a dual PHY at a minimum. • Leaders in the Industry don’t want to start with a multi PHY endorsement • Multiple interoperability programs at the Wimedia (won’t happen) • Multiple solutions for WUSB promoters group (won’t happen) • Complexity in the channel • The common signaling mode isn’t a compromise proposal or interoperability proposal, it’s a co-existence proposal for dual PHY • Co-existence of other PHYs outside 15.3a may decide to place a mechanism to detect 3a preamble and include mechanism to coexist. • A true compromise proposal must be something that each side can find to be minimally acceptable. No one has proposed something that meets this requirement. Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

4. Compromise? • A compromise or agreement is the package (combination of options across all issues) that both negotiators jointly agree upon after exchanging a sequence of offers. • The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece . • Placing an adversary in a position of vulnerability. • a middle way between two extremes • settlement of a difference of opinion in which both sides agree to give up a part of its demands. Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

5. Deciding the requirements • We have a PAR, it is related to defining an alternative PHY. • We do not have a PAR for creating a specification for coexistence of multiple phy’s. (due diligence) • Fairness based on application and user priorities. • Mesh, mobility. • Dynamic range • Upper level logic and policy. • Use cases. • Etc. • Compromise should be a process between the authors, not a forced action. Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

6. Are you listening to customers or listening to yourself? “There will be multiple PHYs shipping into the market so it is in the best interest of the customers to make sure they are interoperable” • John Santoff, Pulse-Link “If there is convergence on a single PHY and a single MAC you will see us be much more aggressive because you will see a greater adoption rate by the industry as a whole”. • Mark Fidler, HP Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

7. Are you listening to customers or listening to yourself? “If we have multiple PHY solutions, the market will be fragmented and we would have to ship more SKU's to cover more user scenarios. Shelf space is precious and there is much added cost for having to have different models. So in this case, investment to cover the same usage will be higher and some options will probably never PAN out (personal humor).  I imagine we would wait to see what transpired in the market and then try to match product on the best scenario of usage by our customers. (There will be cases where we would ship in niche markets where there was clear benefit and alignment between devices, but it would not be heavy volume) I also imagine that many other companies will do the same, so you will see us all playing chicken and egg. This has happened many times before in the industry. Today this is occurring with 802.11 a and g to some extent. Bottom line, there is just a lot more risk in trying to hit the right markets in this scenario”. • Mark Fidler, HP Hmmmmmmm…. Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

8. Are you listening to customers or listening to yourself? "That MAC (802.15.3) is already proven to be suited to CE A/V applications, with low latency, full QoS and support for multiple users," he said. The controller has "been through simulations and now it's been implemented. It's mature and proven." • Martin Rofheart, Motorola “It (the MAC) must be done correct and be attractive to many of the higher volume products from multiple companies. So we would prefer to get it correct. (This is why we are participating in many forums that will be complementary to solutions that will utilize the physical layer that we are talking about on this reflector.) • Mark Fidler, HP HP, as well as Sony, Philips, Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp, Toshiba, NEC, and dozens of other companies disagree with Martin’s statement so much that they have just gone through the process of agreeing to a new MAC to fix the short-comings they are concerned about in the current 15.3 MAC. Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

9. Fallacious Claim: • “Like Betamax vs VHS, let the market decide” • Reality: • PHYs aren’t, and shouldn’t be decided by the end consumer. They should be decided by the international standards bodies like the IEEE whose role is to do exactly that. Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

10. Fallacious Claim: • “This is good for the market because multiple PHYs will ship and customers want them to interoperate” • Reality: • There is no similar market where this is true. • Consumers ONLY want interoperability, they don’t have a preference that it is between 2 different PHYs. • OEM’s don’t want the hassle of multiple PHY’s, the production/test headaches, multiple skews, consumer confusion, etc. Ask any of them. • A single interoperable PHY always dominates all standards based markets Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard

11. Fallacious Claim: • “Because multiple PHYs will ship into the market it is incumbent upon the 15.3a committee to ensure that there is a mechanism for interoperability”. • Reality: • The PAR states nothing of the sort • If this is true then why doesn’t the IEEE narrow the scope of its activities to CSM type activities and leave PHY specifications to the world at large? Mark Fidler, Hewlett Packard