Creative's "Tag Heuer" is codeword for sweeeeeet product

Engadget jumps to lots of conclusions in this recent post about the FCC's outing of Creative's wireless stereo headset. I think the guys over there are digging for a scoop where maybe there isn't one. The LTB reference is unfounded, and the code name "Tag Heuer" is more likely just that, an internally used code-name for the project, rather than a co-branding strategy with the watchmaker.

The graphic shown on Engadget is pulled from the draft user manual. I am hypothesizing that this is a draft because it in no way reflects the aesthetics of Creative's printed literature. Something I'd imagine they'd want to match.

But enough about Engadget's take...

Either way, it should be getting more clear that this is a practical, and exciting new product segment. Gamers, VoIPers, Slingboxers, and Slackers rejoice. I would think all you college freshman out there should be jumping all over this. If your dorm experience is anything like mine was, this is the perfect tool to drown out your room-mate's classic rock, or your neighbor's obsession with Erasure, and let you study/sleep/procrastinate in your own world.

Comments

[Anon]

From the LTB site:

http://www.ltbaudio.com/specs/q-bassmanual.pdf

I'd hardly call that an unfounded reference.

[mtc]

Anon,

Perhaps unfounded was the wrong choice of words... I would say they drew an erroneous conclusion because they didn't understand the information they had in hand. Let me explain "hypothetically" how this occurs...

This is simply a user manual made with the same documentation template. The products are similar, but not the same. I can assure you the marketing of a Creative headset by LTB is NOT the business model at work here.

The fact that Engadget thought this would be marketed as an LTB product shows they themselves are looking at the market from a consumers' vantage point, only they do it with just enough smarts to make them dangerous. It shows they don't have a intimate grasp of how PC accessories and similar products are brought to market in today's industry. It's not hard to draw the wrong conclusions, since it can be confusing as hell.

What most consumers don't realize, through no fault of their own, is that the supply chains for these products are intertwined, even though they are distinctly different products. In this case, the user manual you are pointing to is the manual for LTB's Q-Bass, which is a totally different headset model. The Q-Bass is a circum-aural design, with an embedded microphone. The Tag is a boom-based design. Their UIs are different as well. The USB adapters however are not that dissimilar.

Let's assume that some engineering, production, and final assembly of both of these products are assembled and exported from Asia by the same manufacturing partner ("ASIAN MFGR").

Let's also say that the FCC application required a basic user manual, and rather than wait for Creative's collateral to come together (which is an entirely different department and process within Creative), ASIAN MFGR simply updated an existing document, which maybe they put together for another customer who doesn't have documentation processes of their own (in this case LTB, which is a very outsourcing-leveraged company), and submitted it with the application for Part 15 compliance. In this case, ASIAN MFGR handles the product compliance process as well.

Both Creative and LTB have their own spec and industrial designs that ASIAN MFGR adheres to, while at the same time leveraging core electronics that ASIAN MFGR themselves designed. This is one of the ways that "variety" and "differentiation" is achieved. At the core, is Avnera's IC. Then ASIAN MFGR develops an electrical platform for a couple classes of headsets, then the "brands" come in and apply their marketing know-how to add the custom features and design elements to best target their customer-base. This is the basic, hypothetical process for how different products reach the end consumer via different brands.

Obviously this business model does not apply to all kinds of products. Creative, hypothetically, does more engineering in some cases, and less design and technical marketing in other cases. It all depends on their own return-on-investment analyses, and whether they amount their value add to the marketing, design, or engineering.

Hypothetically, or course.

Further, it is not the only way that Avnera-based products are brought to market. Some of our customers use models like this. In fact, we are enabling some of the best Asian manufacturers who in turn, are enabling many well-known consumer electronics companies with products of their own definition... this is the way Avnera works to penetrate a large swath of the market. Even still, though, some customers do EVERYTHING themselves, they want chips, we never hear from them again, and out pops a product 9 months later. Whatever pays the bills is a viable business model.

I have my own opinions about what makes the best products in the end, but there really is no one right way. It all depends on what the companies know how to manage.