I wanted to write a little about interface standards in consumer electronics. My purpose here isn't to write an exhaustive history of standards and formats – far from it, in fact – rather I want to present some background as a lead-in to some product-specific discussions that will be coming here on wab in the next 6-12 months.
This first article is only to give a little background on this notion of connection standards in consumer electronics, i.e. how devices from different vendors end up settling on means to send content to and from each other.
In the world of consumer electronics and their device interfaces, the most widely adopted interface formats are what we refer to as "standards." Like what? To name a few that might sound familiar: USB, Firewire, Ethernet, WiFi, Bluetooth, RCA, VGA, DVI, HDMI, Component Video...
What differentiates interfaces from one another?
- Some are application specific, some are non-specific
- Some of these interfaces are digital, some analog in nature.
- Some are wired, some wireless
- Some communicate information isochronously, some asychronously
- Some are secure, others are insecure
...the list goes on an on. In many ways, the interfaces define the product, but depending on your technical depth or experience with gadgets, your lists of what set them apart will vary.
Common across these example interfaces, and the main point of this article, is that they've been adopted as standards, meaning lots of things on the back-end... but most importantly, at the consumer level, there is a general acceptance and expectation of functionality via each interface. In addition, consumers can (should) be assured that two devices carrying an interface will be able to interconnect to another device with the same (or complementary format of the same) interface regardless of make or model - i.e. they support interoperability across brands.
For any company that owns the critical intellectual property defining a standard, if you can manage to connect dots for a consumer, positive network externalities await you.
Problems with interfaces and standards
In general, inter-device connections tend to confuse and scare the non-geek consumers, and for good reason... They come in strange shapes, sizes, colors, require wires, passwords, control panels, etc... and they are complex and they come into the market in many ways... with a splash, like a mouse, or like a tornado.
I admit that above, I cheated a little. Some of the examples I gave for standards don't always fulfill their marketed expectations. HDMI had and still has issues with interoperability, and Bluetooth is often and rightfully criticized for its profile madness. There are always market truths, and marketing messages. As always, caveat emptor.
To me, the best interface standard is the one you never notice! It just works. This is the holy grail phenomenon. Not noticing frequently entails not seeing the wires... so of course wireless interfaces are particularly interesting to me. However, I am the first to admit that my work-life is very much consumed with some very important wired interfaces... (USB, Apple's 30-pin, HDMI... etc).
As an example, I wish most consumers appreciated how much "stuff" is happening over the iPod dock connector. Just getting audio out of the iPod is a unique engineering, business relationship, and component economics challenge. Apple has made its own proprietary standard, and while it's a challenging standard to work with, they've earned it to a degree by delivering an incredible consumer experience in the iPod/iPhone, the ecosystem's host gadget. The accessory world pays to play as a result. What's incredible to me is that pretty much every modern interface standard has some sort of obstacle course that must be navigated in order to implement... system integrators spend most of their time with this stuff.
This is the other problem-set when it come to interface standards – working with a given standard can be easy or challenging. Highly planned and rationalized standards tend to be easier for device makers to employ, as the technology vendors (connector makers, protocol baseband chip suppliers, etc) have competition and thus have to earn their customer the old fashioned way, through affordability, quality of support, and solution convenience. The more proprietary and closed a standard is, the harder (and more expensive) it typically is to access and implement, and unfortunately this slows the growth and decreases the standard's overall potential.
The pursuit of the next big thing standard
Much of the electronics industry is driven by the pursuit of creating a technology that can become a standard. Duh. Silicon companies, algorithm IP creators, etc... can retire once they land a standard. It's the home-run everyone wants.
There is no one way to be successful in achieving this. It can and has happened by many recipes and business models.
Standard creation involves tradeoffs:
- Trying to be all things to all people versus risking not doing enough and thus missing a critical application and losing to a competitive standard.
- Doing it alone, doing it with partners
- Opening it up, or keeping it proprietary
The standards creators can be anything from a single engineer, to a startup, to an R&D lab of an industry giant (how Bluetooth began at Ericsson), to a committee of all of the above... There are also practical, technical, and economic implications, which is why silicon companies are often right in the middle of these discussion. Most of the standards above require chip-based solutions for implementing, and thus chipmakers become vital part of any go-to-market strategy for a standards format, particularly wireless ones.
Go-to-market strategies also run the gamut of business models. There are companies like Apple who create new standards and just take them to market – the "why wait for everyone else... I need this" approach. They like to create proprietary standards and if they're lucky... down the road force partners in the industry to pay to use their connectors, protocols, etc... Microsoft too. Nintendo too. Think game controller plugs. Microsoft used a custom variant of USB for Xbox controller accessories and a custom variant of 802.11 for their wireless Xbox 360 controllers and headsets. Nintendo uses a custom profile over Bluetooth for the Wii.
There are also marketing SIGs. Joint bodies chaired often by the inventor entity(or entities). These participants may have been part of the design phase of the standard as well, or the tail end of it to get their 2 cents in so they feel ownership. Look at
Bluetooth SIG,
WiMedia Alliance,
Wireless USB,
WirelessHD,
WHDI,
WiGig Alliance to see works in process at various levels of success/maturity. Interface standards are really no different than format wars in media (
Blu-ray,
HD-DVD,
VHS,
Betamax). Just that in format wars you also involve the media owners which opens up another can of worms...
What any of these approaches reveal is that the one thing you need to create a successful standard is: a center of gravity.
Be one. Make one. Find one.
My feeling on marketing standards about 4 years ago was: find a center of gravity in the industry, and you will find a potential sponsor of a standard.
Apple is a center of gravity because of their leadership in design and software. Their almost flawless execution in the
portable/mobile world has solidified this for years to come. So there you go - great example. Build one of the coolest product ever designed, put tons of clever marketing behind it, build in your own core technology, publish a programming guide and API to access your IP, and create a
license program, and... ok... this is not for everyone.
Who else is out there that has muscle? Who defines and builds platforms and owns networks? Who else build compelling user experiences? Who has vast marketing budgets?
Intel? Yes. Qualcomm? Yes. Heard of
CDMA. Microsoft?
Yes. Verizon? Well they certainly try. Google? Yes. Nintendo?
Yes. Sony? Yes. Once more so, but still have rabbits in hats. Cisco? Probably? Dell? Yes. Vizio? Maybe.
On their own, some of these require a little imagination, I'll give you that... but vision and the will to shoot the moon come at many moments, and these companies have track records and resources that those with a vision on a new standard would die to have in their quiver.
Certainly, a center of gravity can arise from groups of
enough firms. For some small firms, there-in lies a marketing strategy. The WiGig Alliance mentioned earlier is an example of an alliance that is largely dependent on one silicon startup's success -
Wilocity - who have decided to create a center of gravity around a specification, and now it is up to them to deliver the key enabling silicon.
What haven't I mentioned?
What are some other ways to find a center of gravity that can affect an interface standard's success? Who has the power to ascertain what technologies are best for consumers? Who has the power to shape the product design decisions at a CE device maker?
Stay tuned...
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 1:55AM 
