FREETALK Wireless (2nd Gen) in the house! Literally.

Along with a couple other little gadgets, the FREETALK Wireless headset arrived in the mail from InStoreSolutions (ISS). This product – before even getting into it – holds a special place in my heart, as it uses a chipset from Avnera that I helped design and target at precisely this usage model. That all started six years ago... but amazingly enough this is the first 2nd Generation model to emerge from one of the chipset's adopters. The other first generation products from Logitech, Plantronics, and Creative are still out there, and going strong (save for Creative's which is hard to come by... unfortunately because their mic boom was h-o-t).

Cracking the box open, plugging it in... all worked without a hitch. Devices were paired out of the box, so no setup, and plugging it into the MacBookPro was seamless. Plug and Play, as usual, painless.

The high points

Compared to the first generation FREETALK, the new model is more comfortable, sports a folding design, and comes with a protective and compact carrying case. Definite improvements. The mic boom is the same variety that Creative used, and so it is awesome in feel and manipulation, however the mic tip itself is kinda chunky and blah.

While heating my dinner in the microwave, there was slight interference, but no interruptions... just some warbling and slightly chirpy distortion which is a result of the error concealment algorithms employed by Avnera. To further make life difficult for the FREETALK, there was WiFi active in the same room, as well as one other AvneraAudio device sending audio within my home-theater space. Basically, it's nice to see after a couple years, the wireless audio chipset holds up to even some pretty insane usage stress.

Range performance was particularly good on the model I received. I easily had 45 feet through two walls. Slightly better than the Plantronics .Audio 995 I usually use, and where my head position can cause drop outs when I am on the other end of the my space. Nothing of the sort with the FREETALK. I'm sure the manufacturer has taken their learnings from building the first generation model which always helps maintain RF performance and consistency. It's not unusual for a high level of variability to plague wireless performance on one piece versus the next. It's maddening for makers, and more important those poor users who get stuck with one... just make sure you save your receipts for a day or two.

Switzerland

A few points to note regarding this model that I am fairly neutral about. This second generation FREETALK Wireless has a proper dongle without the wire tethered "puck" of the the first generation model. I guess I like it for cleanliness sake, but it also bugs a little me because I am always worried I will wrench it while plugged into my MacBook Pro.

I noticed the addition of microphone sidetone added into the headphone audio – something the Logitech had, and I personally could care less about.

The other aspect of this model I could take or leave is the new style.   The design has a very generic industrial design on the cups, and if I had to sound negative here in Switzerland, the silkscreening was a bit garish and clumsy looking.

My one (real) disappointment

Where this particular model really fell short of its pioneering predecessors was in the sound quality – both in tonal aspects, and in audible noise level.

To my ear, the 2nd Gen FREETALK sounds a little tinny and less precise than the Logitech and Plantronics models, and perhaps even less forgivably, worse than the 1st Gen FREETALK (which trumped them all to be frank).  I am disappointed that ISS didn't follow through on the most stealthy, audio value device in this space.

The second issue is noise. When there is nothing playing through, there is an audible amount of noise to be heard. A shame, and a blemish on what could be a much better SNR given the core system employed. I admit I'm a little more critical than most, and it's really only noticeable when music isn't playing... but as a hint to technical folks associated with this product, the noise I am hearing does not change with the volume level of the headphone DAC which (I think) means that the audio is coupling into the speakers themselves directly from the circuit itself.

Again, all three models I've used extensively before this did not exhibit this noise problem, which to me is a factor of the maker and product development decisions made while bringing this product to market.

Hopefully some tweaks improve this as production moves forward, or perhaps I had a bad unit in some respect.

Overall

For US$79.99, this product is a considerably good value for the features and experience it provides.  It's no secret my personal favorite Avnera-based headset is the Plantronics .Audio 995, but considering the latest FREETALK gets better range, is more compact and carry-friendly, and assuming they can fix the one needling audio quality issue, I would say it's a toss up between these two models.

Many users stand to be very satisfied. It's also great that ISS has stepped up their support levels and so much user frustration from the early days of the first model will be addressed in a better manner going forward.

It's the centers of gravity, stupid.

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...

Second generation FREETALK Wireless Stereo Headset available at Skype.com

Completely updated design, the Freetalk Wireless Stereo Headset is on sale at Skype.com now.

If you were feeling lucky, perhaps you took a shot at one during Engadget's recession antidote yesterday:

Today we've got a FREETALK Wireless Stereo Headset along with a Skype voucher that'll net you free calls for three whole months. The World Plan voucher will link you up anywhere in the world that Skype supports, and coming off of a trip to Central America, we can certainly say it comes in handy (and works well, to boot).

Unless you were the winner, you're gonna want to head to Skype.com to pick yours up.

Another in a long line of Avnera-enabled headsets, I think this one's travel-friendly folding design gives it a clear differentiator to my personal favorite, the Plantronics .Audio 995.

The leader of the pack (imo).

The Plantronics take on Avnera's first gen AudioMagic chips seems to capture the yellow jersey.  Logitech, Creative, and Freetalk may very well still be selling at a strong clip, but the feature set and execution of the .Audio 995 seems to resonate with consumers more than the others – who admittedly are getting long in the tooth.

Just ran across these user reviews over at Amazon, and they made my day, and so I think they are worth reading...

From Chris Zee Shutterbug:

Let me start with something that amazed me. I plugged the USB dongle into the computer, started Itunes, hit play and music started coming from the headphones!!! I did not have to configure a single thing. [...] That level of ease of operation has to be commended.

From Jennifer:

I love these headphones. I got them for my teenage son, but when he told me to listen to the great sound they became mine! The sound quality is incredible. [...] My son used them for World of Warcraft and he said the sound was awesome. He wants them back...but I've found a great hiding place and I am keeping them!

From CR Swanson:

I've reviewed three different headphones for Amazon Vine, including the three-hundered dollar Monster Beats, and this is, by far, the best of the bunch. They're comfy, they have great sound quality and the wireless mode just can't be beat!

From P Colin McGraw (with a gripe for balance):

I usually use wired headsets, and it feels freeing to be able to walk around the room listening to music, not having to navigate to iTunes with my mouse to fast forward as I get tangled in a headphone's cord. In fact, I'd actually use this headset even if I didn't need a microphone for just the awesome wireless headphone capabilities!

If I had to dig deep for a negative, I guess it would be the comfort. [...] the pads on your ears are designed to go ON TOP of your ears instead of AROUND them. It basically smooshes your ears to the side of your head, which you don't mind at first with the soft pads, but it gets uncomfortable after awhile.

Overall, it's hard to find a flaw with these and I'd wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone looking for a headset with or without a mic! It would be hard to design this headset any better and it's a great value!

There is another review, that gave 2 out of 5 stars (when 4/5 is the average over 8 reviews) – feel free to check it out – but from what I know of our technology, he is experiencing a busted antenna, probably a maunfacturing defect...  No other reason why he'd be getting garbagey sound while he moves.  Also, the output power of the headset compared to a 2.4GHz cordless telephone is not even close!  So if he is looking for a source for his wireless-G woes.. he should direct his attention elsewhere.  That's the spectrum monster.  Also he should switch to Skype and junk the 20th century technology.

Gotta love Plantronics' distribution too...

I failed to mention, the .Audio 995 is available for ordering now at:

• Amazon
• Best Buy
• Tiger Direct
• for all you SMB buyers out there... a whole host of distributors

Go get one. Please. Thanks.