The issue of how openness of networks should be defined by regulators, suppliers and operators has once again come into focus as the FCC considers complaints by Google that Apple has restricted Google Voice from being available for the iPhone. AT&T has responded that they have not stipulated that Google Voice or other applications cannot run on their network so long as they adhere to security and service agreement requirements. (see ATT's response letter to the FCC Google Voice inquiry):
FCC, "Question 1(a). What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications?"
AT&T, "AT&T had no role in Apple’s consideration of Google Voice or related applications."
Apple's response is that they have not made a decision yet. But they say that Google Voice imposes a user interface that is different than the iPhone and that it replaces core voice telephone capability:
"FCC, Question 1a. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?"
Apple, "Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail."
This argument hinges on the operative word 'replaces' and can be attuned to imposition of an application in the PC environment. While the mobile and PC environments have been distinct in the past, this is not necessarily the world we all live in today.
From my understanding of how Google Voice works on the iPhone it is as an individual application chosen by the user from among others. As such, to say that it replaces the telephone capabilities of the iPhone is an overreaching attempt at exclusion. That is like saying "we have a fair and open applications environment so long as you don't compete with our core applications." If that is the case,gGiven the shape of the delivery model and prior FCC rulings, I don't think that this argument will stick. In the least, the FCC is likely to require Apple to set guidelines for what constitutes 'replacement' of their core interface and apps and then allow Google and others to be given the opportunity to use the interface at user's discretion. Its speculative but my guess is 90% odds Google will prevail on being able to be offered as app that runs on the iPhone. Perhaps after some modifications. Google Voice on a the web and other SmartPhones do not appear to be a problem: it does not 'replace' regular phone service or user interface on other access devices.
Much more hangs in the balance than whether this single application runs on a currently popular mobile device:
The Obama administration is broadly considered to favor more open access and competition among suppliers and operators. Advisers who now work for the administration had been known previously to have favored a more aggressive stance on FCC decisions including the wholesale access provisions for the C-Block 700MHz auction.
What Apple has done is punted to avoid the FCC coming down with a decision which would set precedence for the future. Apple would rather say "What problem? These things take time. And it isn't that we object to competition from alternative voice and other applications, it is that Google is messing with the interface so they might bruise our Apple."
The issue goes far beyond Apple to how open and transparent and fair the qualification process is for open development platforms and apps store placement. This is an ongoing issue that stems from evolution of the supply ecosystem of the broadband wireless Cloud. This has ramifications for all other operators in the U.S. and can influence regulations and commercial development internationally. To a large extent the commercial trends push for the innovation open development unleashes and attempts to confine it are likely to eventually backfire. In the near term Apple hopes to hold onto the role as surrogate for operator control of the walled garden, a position that has become less viable for mobile operators, handset and integrated network suppliers.
If the FCC requires Apple to admit applications where will it end? Apple and other apps stores and device manufacturers restrict applications that are packaged to be available for specific OS and devices used on mobile networks. Would the ruling result in a flood of appeals to the FCC for similar action or will a higher degree of visibility into the selection criteria and process for 'open' apps dev.
In the long run we think commercial forces will pressure increased openness because open development is the engine that will drive subscriber loyalty through greater choice and innovation. But the industry is structured around simple voice, messaging that has the inevitable sway to retain control.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Monday, October 29, 2007
WiMAX and LTE Semiconductor Opportunities
WiMAX and LTE Semiconductor Opportunities
Forward:
WiMAX and LTE (Long Term Evolution), NGMN (Next Generation Mobile Networks) provide opportunities for participation of fabless design and fabrication companies as well as established integrated semiconductor companies. The field promises lower barriers to IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) and new evolutionary paths where innovation and combinations of features can help forge competitive advantage. However, momentum has started making it more difficult for new entrants who do not have leverage into markets to gain a foothold.
WiMAX and LTE developments incorporate emerging sets of technologies and enable wireless mobile broadband which broadens the scope and diversity of applications. Despite very active development, many segments of technology ride on top of long developing technology that have their roots in wired and wireless communications, consumer electronics, IT/Networking, and Internet and entertainment. This convergence, long more talk than reality, is now appearing in such products as Apple’s much talked about iPhone and more dramatically in WiMAX which proposes a new business model for operators and service providers and a more open model for chip suppliers.
With the great opportunities that NGMN provides, there is a need to consider how competition is already positioned, where the needs of the market are unmet and evolving, and how IPR is organized and may need to be licensed. This article cannot answer all of these questions but will provide an outline of where the market is, where it is headed and who owns major sets of IPR and how the licensing regime is starting to shape up. Although many of the segments of technology will be similar, because the 3GPP LTE standard is not yet finalized, emphasis of the article will be on WiMAX.
Brief Background and Market Forecast
802.16 and WiMAX were developed upon the need to provide ubiquitous broadband coverage through the use of new wireless technologies. The efforts had roots among disparate microwave broadband access and specialty service providers who saw the necessity to shift to standard implementations in order to take the industry into mainstream markets and achieve a needed ecosystem.
Because the merits of the technology of the ‘fixed’ version and endorsement by Intel and other leading companies, a large number of mobile wireless leaders have joined the effort. The pace of development in WiMAX has resoundingly accelerated, and now a broader assemblage of companies including service providers, media and Internet giants has mounted efforts.
The early success at achieving development momentum has caused a shift in 3G cellular development: The long term prospect of shifting to OFDM from CDMA has been accelerated. LTE now appears 2-4 years away from commercial deployment. Like WiMAX, LTE uses OFDMA based technology and requires new or transitioned spectrum and is not an evolution of existing wireless links. LTE’ s hope of transitioning the 3G business model hinges on marketing and not technology momentum.
Forecast:
WiMAX is a ‘front loaded business model’ which also describes some of the difference in business model between it and 3G/LTE. Intel and others will load WiMAX into laptops, ultra portable laptops, smart phones and off-the-shelf subscriber units. This loading of the market will cause a rapid ramp in demand for WiMAX chips that gain volume product sockets even though initial subscriber rates lag far behind.
3G use for data is now growing at a rapid pace. This is helped by adoption in Asian and is now spreading to the North America and other regions. The success is compounded by higher ARPUs and profit margin.
Wired broadband growth is forecast to slow as saturation rates in developed regions reaches saturation:
Wireless broadband is growing rapidly. WiMAX and LTE are expected to se rapid growth due to market seeding and desirable service profile that will capture market share in developed and grow new customers in emerging markets:
Standards
WiMAX is based primarily on 802.16 but also embraces additional wireless, networking, and computing and device standards. The WiMAX Forum has recently issued guidance to members that WiMAX and 802.16 are not synonymous: that WiMAX can include additional standards under the umbrella. This fits current trends in enabling chip technology and markets for multi-mode, multi-spectra and multi simultaneous radio designs. It is foreseeable that WiMAX systems may include cognitive radio (802.22) as well as 802.11 and perhaps LTE via integrated chips sets if market conditions are compelling.
Market Forecast
Current WiMAX semiconductor suppliers
WiMAX has attracted a large number of chip suppliers that range from fabless design shops to the largest integrated IC manufacturer. This is aided by open standards, international participation including among emerging economies and FRAND IPR development model.
Mass Market Chip Suppliers
Intel, Fujitsu are leading chip companies supplying the emerging WiMAX developments. TI, Broadcom are potential new entrants. TI now supplies communications DSPs for WiMAX base stations but has yet to provide SoCs and a more concerted product focus. Broadcom is rumored to be doing work on WiMAX SoCs.
Fabless
Over 12 fabless design companies have announced or are in production of WiMAX chips. These include BeCeem, Sequans, RunCom, Wavesat, Comsys, DesignArt, and picoChip.
Captive
NextWave and Motorola are notable companies that are developing WiMAX chips primarily for internal consumption. Recently NextWave has announced merchant chip supply ODM partners with intent to sell product into open markets. Motorola has developed WiMAX SoC with TI and we anticipate expansion of the relationship to include sale of chips outside of the captive market. TI has also partnered in 3G multi-mode chip developments with Comsys and other fabless design shops which brings up speculation that this may extend to TI mounting their own WiMAX multi-mode SoC chip.
Technology Gestation and Trends
WiMAX mobile is based on OFDM/OFDMA for which the core technology has been developed over a period of several years and is used broadly in wired and wireless and defense industry communications. OFDM is used in DSL, DVB, Wi-Fi, and WiMAX and will become the leading core technology for NGMN systems. WiMAX also includes HARQ, adaptive modulation, MIMO, AAS which have been diversified the IPR content of systems and devices.
The diversity of technology segments can be seen in the following graph. For reasons of graphic simplicity, this shows only a portion of segments of technology important to converged NGMN products but gives some understanding of the range and increase in IPR activity that affects the emerging field:
Accelerated development has been occurring in MIMO-AAS. This development is reflected in patent applications: MIMO & AAS patent applications now far exceed those for core link technologies used in WiMAX. This is because MIMO-AAS is a relatively fresh field of development and holds great potential for achieving performance and cost effectiveness. Technologies such as MIMO-AAS also can be viewed as segments that extend wireless broadband without effecting core compatibility and standards compliance. This allows flexibility to extend WiMAX (or LTE) to superset functionality that differentiates chips suppliers.
IPR Ownership, Policies and Licensing Trends
Diversity of Ownership
WiMAX IPR is highly diversified. The following graph shows diversification of OFDM IPR. Similar diversity of contributions can be seen in new segments of MIMO, AAS, and wireless networking methods.
Key IPR Holders
Key holders of WiMAX IPR include Samsung, Nokia, Nortel, Intel, Qualcomm, Motorola, Ericsson, ATT, Interdigital. But besides ‘counting patents’ that might have been used in WiMAX because companies say they are, IPR that is essential to WiMAX is more specific to companies who have participated in 802.16 and WiMAX Forum developments. A study of essential IPR distinguishes Samsung and smaller companies that show relatively low patent counts due to participation in standards. Of course, some of these companies have been acquired by Intel and others.
Qualcomm’s WiMAX IPR position has come into question: Qualcomm holds several OFDM and other segments of technology generally used in WiMAX and has acquired Flarion, Airgo and other companies involved in 802.20 and 802.11 respectively. However, the essentiality of the IPR is questionable.
Licensing Policies and Trends
Recent court and trade commission decisions have put an emphasis on adherence to FRAND licensing agreements. US Supreme Court rulings have raised the bar for obviousness which preferences the value of fundamental and essential IPR. We believe that this bodes well for WiMAX IPR licensing being relatively free of disruptive contention and having lower royalty rate structure than found in 3G.
Most of the leading WiMAX IPR holders assert that they do not plan to aggressively enforce their IPR. Paul Zeineddin, Intellectual Property Counsel, Samsung Electronics, for example, says Samsung would like to see cross-licensing and reasonable licensing of IPR develop. Similarly, Intel, Nortel, Motorola and others have similarly supported low IPR contention in order to stimulate rapid and diverse industry development.
Opportunities for WiMAX and LTE Semiconductors
Already too Crowded?
Among questions for any company now or contemplating supply of WiMAX ICs is whether there is room for market entry or continued development of new generations of standardized WiMAX ICs. This question is determined on company strengths and ability to either innovate beyond current levels or leverage market or manufacturing capabilities. WiMAX mobile is expected to ramp to high volume very rapidly due to seeding of established embedded product markets. This front-loading of markets also is expected to cause a rapid ramp in open market supply. And since strict standard and WiMAX Forum compliance is required and IPR hurdles are manageable, barriers to entry are low and are built to core uniformity.
Differentiation of vendors has occurred in chip architecture and level of integration and advanced power reduction and management capabilities. But these avenues for differentiation have been pursued leaving limited room for fresh exploitation. For example, several suppliers now plan similar power level reductions through shift to smaller geometries and new higher isolation property processes and materials fabrication.
Differentiation also occurs in development of chip architecture and design platforms that leverage development more easily across scalable devices and base stations. That is characterized by picoChip’s use of ‘massively parallel’ DSP architecture that is implemented in modular software within a common design environment. Complimented with ARC and MIMO-AAS processing, this architecture provides a viable platform for development from femto remote devices to macro base stations. This approach is 1st to be applied to WiMAX/OFDMA WWAN but is not expected to remain unique for long.
The device side is also driven to optimize SoCs including designs implementing multiple cores and signal process segmentation. This helps in development of more powerful yet low cost and low and scalable power remote stations and subscriber units which also help set the stage for Smart Distributed Wireless Broadband Networking, SDWBBN, an area of development with great potential for product differentiation because of improvements in performance and cost efficiency.
Unless the manufacturer is able to leverage process and design technologies or market influence to remarkable advantage, this scenario forces innovation that goes beyond core wireless chip implementation. Companies now wishing to enter the field or enhance competitiveness must look to SDWBBN, developing complete product families including integrated and well supported development platforms.
Time to Market
The deployment of wireless systems based on the new set of OFDM, MIMO-AAS, and smart distributed networking technologies has only begun. Theoretical limits for spectrum reuse and network enhancements show that we have just now scratched the surface. Much innovation must take place along the current path to achieve near the levels of performance expected of 4G as elucidated by ITU for IMT-Advanced: 100 Mbps per user mobile, 1 Gbps per user fixed-nomadic.
We anticipate industry development somewhat along the lines of that seen in WiFi: a growth in number of chip vendors followed by rapid decline in prices and consolidation. However, WiMAX and LTE will be more diverse by nature of serving a far wider scale of applications and spectra and becoming a common platform for integration of networking across wireless systems.
This means that timing is critical to exploit stages of development which now occur at a rapid pace but careful planning and execution can lead to successful exploitation of opportunities yet to evolve.
Where Innovation Can be Leveraged
As mentioned, a large portion of innovation has started to occur outside of core wireless link capabilities. That area is common ground and is able to be exploited via semiconductor time-to-market process innovations and market leverage rather than basic wireless design innovation.
That is not the case for MIMO-AAS, MU-MIMO, CO-MIMO, virtual base station aggregations, adaptive backhaul, self-forming and redundant multi-hop networks and sub nets, and other aspects of SDWBBN development
Long Term Wireless Trends and Convergence
Wireless is converging between wireless link technologies via multi-mode and multi-spectra ICs, RFICs and antenna components and development of standards into multi-service ‘framework’ platforms that are extensible rather than targeted development for a specific application (examples mobile cellular or Wi-Fi in a specific spectrum). This approach encourages a more holistic consideration for IC development. ICs can be targeted for achieving low power primarily in the highest volume spectrum applications but competition for that space will be fierce. In order to differentiate, suppliers must leverage markets, processes or design innovation.
Convergence will occur between WBB access, 3G mobile, and WLAN. And it is also occurring across industries including IT/networking, PCs & laptops, consumer electronics, and Internet and broadcast media. This creates new opportunities and conflicts. IPR remains a central issue both to seek leverage and avoid conflicts. IPR analysis can be used as a tool to organize a wide view of industry development. This gives engineering and corporate management a useful tool to help direct planning and effective use of resources to catch successive waves of developments and map them to semiconductor process and design methodologies.
WiMAX and LTE use similar sets of technologies and are driven by common IC process, antenna and RF component, and very similar dynamics for MIMO-AAS and SDWBBN development. However, IPR specific to the two standards and differences in implementations creates obvious differentiation of product efforts. But equipment platforms that hold much in common are being pursued by Nokia, Nortel and other major systems developers who hope to sell into both WiMAX and LTE requirements. This commonality also extends into programmable and probably into future multi-mode chip sets that can share many common functions.
Convergence beyond multi-mode with WiFi and PANs remains in dispute: there is reason to think that WiMAX can serve local area networking needs in a more integrated fashion than Wi-Fi, particularly for high availability/high reliability uses.
In Conclusion:
Wireless is shifting to a new evolutionary platform of technologies that will be extended for several years similar to development in IT/networking but with even a greater focus on innovation during the ‘catalyst years’ of development.
copyright: Robert Syputa, WiMAXPro, LLC, all rights reserved
WiMAX-LTE Long Term Evolution
WiMAX-LTE Long Term Evolution
The discussion over the role that WiMAX will play in the evolving landscape of the converging wireless broadband industry has been shifting rapidly over the past several months: closer alignment between the rapid development of WiMAX and LTE has been emerging. The question for incumbent operators is more about when a shift to IP networks will make sense and how to convert the prescribed ‘walled garden’ mobile service business model so it doesn't degenerate to selling a wholesale open bandwidth pipe. The question is no longer about ‘if’ but ‘when’ and how to master the now inevitable changes. The way forward is for control of QoS and multiple IP based services and targeted advertising.
WiMAX/802.16 is designed to deliver multiple types and levels of service through a flexible, IP network architecture and authentication and QoS mechanisms. WiMAX can be implemented as a flat, ‘pure IP’ network or as a part of a multi-mode service environment through application servers, network gateways and IMS.
The advance of WiMAX is forcing LTE to the front burner; ahead of IP based services otherwise being solidified within 3GPP, incumbent operators are pressing development of LTE to transition networks so that business models can evolve to deliver premium services and QoS. Incumbent operators have much more to lose besides their deployment investment in NGMN: existing customers and ongoing revenue.
LTE and IMT-Advanced are now headed in a similar direction as WiMAX: Creating networks that are OFDMA based, adaptive to various channels and signal conditions, and is based on standards that are a framework that allows significant change and extension without breaking. This approach now looks obvious.
Admittance of WiMAX into IMT-2000
The admittance of WiMAX OFDMA TDD WMAN (IP-OFDMA) into the IMT-2000 family of 3G standards makes it clear that WiMAX is a cellular wireless system. This includes mobile capability, but like IMT-Advanced and other emerging prescriptions for NGMN/4G, is a scalable framework which can be implemented as a local to metro scale wireless broadband network and for both high value and commodity applications.
LTE is a worthwhile development that the WiMAX cannot argue does not make sense as it copies the objectives and set of technologies. Likewise, WiMAX builds on past success of 3G, lessons learned in how to structure standards, exploratory R&D, and how to construct a development ecosystem. But WiMAX is here now and first to exploit OFDM/OFDMA plus MIMO-AAS in a pure IP wide area, granular network environment.
The big challenge is building sales momentum. LTE has the goal of availability sometime in 2009. However, first commercial availability of LTE to meet ITU IMT-Advanced requirements is expected not earlier than 2011 And to transition incumbent IMT-2000 network spectrum may take several years beyond commercial introduction for either WiMAX or LTE. Subscribers must first transition via multi-mode devices before a hard turnover of network spectrum can occur. That allows both WiMAX time to establish momentum beyond common perception. But this also allows and LTE time to develop together to counter WiMAX’ charge. Transitions of 3G spectrum are unlikely to significantly start until 2012 or later This makes the winning of incumbent operators for deployment of NGMN a long term positioning strategy than with a substantial shift for incumbent deployments a work in progress for several years. That poses LTE more as a paper tiger effort aimed at stalling momentum of WiMAX than forging a near-term shift in market direction from 3G to NGMN/4G.
WiMAX has an image communication problem: The marketing image has not been so well positioned as 'an evolutionary platform'. A lot has to do with the fact that vendors must focus on what can be developed and sold in the near term. But network deployment decisions take long term planning and commitments, making the evolutionary path of development very important.
LTE starts out with the premise that it is an evolution of 3G. This turns out to be more marketing hype than reality: it is not much different from the premise for WiMAX in ability to migrate the user base and supplant existing networks -both WiMAX and LTE are disruptive in their need to convert spectrum and enable a shift to IP centered business models.
There are technical differences between these two: LTE, which will use OFDMA on the downlink and SC-OFDM on the uplink, is optimized for downlink bandwidth and lower power consumption in portable devices. WiMAX uses OFDMA on both up and downlink combined with adaptive power control, modulation, channelization and system architecture to reduce mobile device power requirements. This approach provides more symmetrical bandwidth. The LTE approach assumes that network traffic shows up in the future similar to past experience: downlink to uplink ratios of 5:1 to 3:1. This assumption is being cast into doubt by recent real world experience in 3G data networks. Two thirds of traffic bandwidth as shown from recent network studies by operators is PtP based. Person-to-Person traffic including personal video and file sharing requires more symmetrical bandwidth capacity. This trend likely to continue if not accelerates as new applications such as video conferencing and video posting/sharing come more into vogue. That helps tip the balance in favor of a more symmetrical and distributed technologies and network architecture. Although a wide range of solutions is required, the argument in favor of adaptive use of OFDMA for both uplink and downlink traffic and spatial domain enhancement to both increase capacity and reduce subscriber power requirement is growing.. These near-term technical differences may matter less in the long term to the two sister wireless developments than how business models are developed to use them. WiMAX plunges more directly toward an open IP business model including granular deployment and network segment ownership. 3G-LTE attempts to hold onto the incumbent prescribed service business model. While the two approaches can work together to some degree, longer term the open access IP disrupts the incumbent model.
WiMAX Success in Respect to LTE
Because the technologies and goals are similar, success of WiMAX comes down to execution and marketing and user preferences.. WiMAX is challenging the huge cellular industry for a place alongside it as wireless becomes increasingly a broadband applications platform. But, likewise, the incumbent mobile wireless industry is challenging to become the most personal and leveraged aspect for program applications, content and services for converged wired and wireless network environments.
Shai Yaniv, Sr. Director Corporate Marketing, Alvarion comments that for WiMAX “There is a huge market demand for personal and primary broadband for consumers and households in various regions. WiMAX in the next few years does not necessarily need to address the high vehicular speed applications, which are more associated with voice and audio-visual conversational applications. However, since WiMAX is clearly available before LTE, the time to market advantage WiMAX holds can bring it to fulfill mobile applications in various environments a well. Certainly, the technological capabilities exist and the industry will focus on creating the eco system to help make this happen if the market for WiMAX as a vehicular speed mobile system develops.”
“We should also be looking at the market dynamics with regards to what steps the non mobile carriers and ISPs will take to make space for personal broadband services in their portfolio. Mobile (3G) operators will need to assess their plans as well as considering LTE will not be available soon. This is even more the case for 2G carriers having no 3G spectrum.”
“WiMAX needs to keep up the momentum, particularly on the consumer electronics side which faces challenges leading the industry in use of antenna technologies”, Shai added.
Mr. Yaniv’s comments show both the convergence that is taking place among operator business models and challenges for WiMAX development. Open IP environments are needed to foster common technology development and manufacturing efficiencies but also cast several diverse businesses into competition.
The first task for long-term evolution of the wireless industry has been to construct a flexible framework standard and development environment. The IEEE 802.16 and WiMAX Forum have a significant portion of that work. Evolution of both systems and business models, what can be the more disruptive part still lay ahead
WiMAX has made progress in wireless development and in the perception of what it can deliver and where it is headed. WiMAX is a Long Term Evolutionary wireless platform.
The discussion over the role that WiMAX will play in the evolving landscape of the converging wireless broadband industry has been shifting rapidly over the past several months: closer alignment between the rapid development of WiMAX and LTE has been emerging. The question for incumbent operators is more about when a shift to IP networks will make sense and how to convert the prescribed ‘walled garden’ mobile service business model so it doesn't degenerate to selling a wholesale open bandwidth pipe. The question is no longer about ‘if’ but ‘when’ and how to master the now inevitable changes. The way forward is for control of QoS and multiple IP based services and targeted advertising.
WiMAX/802.16 is designed to deliver multiple types and levels of service through a flexible, IP network architecture and authentication and QoS mechanisms. WiMAX can be implemented as a flat, ‘pure IP’ network or as a part of a multi-mode service environment through application servers, network gateways and IMS.
The advance of WiMAX is forcing LTE to the front burner; ahead of IP based services otherwise being solidified within 3GPP, incumbent operators are pressing development of LTE to transition networks so that business models can evolve to deliver premium services and QoS. Incumbent operators have much more to lose besides their deployment investment in NGMN: existing customers and ongoing revenue.
LTE and IMT-Advanced are now headed in a similar direction as WiMAX: Creating networks that are OFDMA based, adaptive to various channels and signal conditions, and is based on standards that are a framework that allows significant change and extension without breaking. This approach now looks obvious.
Admittance of WiMAX into IMT-2000
The admittance of WiMAX OFDMA TDD WMAN (IP-OFDMA) into the IMT-2000 family of 3G standards makes it clear that WiMAX is a cellular wireless system. This includes mobile capability, but like IMT-Advanced and other emerging prescriptions for NGMN/4G, is a scalable framework which can be implemented as a local to metro scale wireless broadband network and for both high value and commodity applications.
LTE is a worthwhile development that the WiMAX cannot argue does not make sense as it copies the objectives and set of technologies. Likewise, WiMAX builds on past success of 3G, lessons learned in how to structure standards, exploratory R&D, and how to construct a development ecosystem. But WiMAX is here now and first to exploit OFDM/OFDMA plus MIMO-AAS in a pure IP wide area, granular network environment.
The big challenge is building sales momentum. LTE has the goal of availability sometime in 2009. However, first commercial availability of LTE to meet ITU IMT-Advanced requirements is expected not earlier than 2011 And to transition incumbent IMT-2000 network spectrum may take several years beyond commercial introduction for either WiMAX or LTE. Subscribers must first transition via multi-mode devices before a hard turnover of network spectrum can occur. That allows both WiMAX time to establish momentum beyond common perception. But this also allows and LTE time to develop together to counter WiMAX’ charge. Transitions of 3G spectrum are unlikely to significantly start until 2012 or later This makes the winning of incumbent operators for deployment of NGMN a long term positioning strategy than with a substantial shift for incumbent deployments a work in progress for several years. That poses LTE more as a paper tiger effort aimed at stalling momentum of WiMAX than forging a near-term shift in market direction from 3G to NGMN/4G.
WiMAX has an image communication problem: The marketing image has not been so well positioned as 'an evolutionary platform'. A lot has to do with the fact that vendors must focus on what can be developed and sold in the near term. But network deployment decisions take long term planning and commitments, making the evolutionary path of development very important.
LTE starts out with the premise that it is an evolution of 3G. This turns out to be more marketing hype than reality: it is not much different from the premise for WiMAX in ability to migrate the user base and supplant existing networks -both WiMAX and LTE are disruptive in their need to convert spectrum and enable a shift to IP centered business models.
There are technical differences between these two: LTE, which will use OFDMA on the downlink and SC-OFDM on the uplink, is optimized for downlink bandwidth and lower power consumption in portable devices. WiMAX uses OFDMA on both up and downlink combined with adaptive power control, modulation, channelization and system architecture to reduce mobile device power requirements. This approach provides more symmetrical bandwidth. The LTE approach assumes that network traffic shows up in the future similar to past experience: downlink to uplink ratios of 5:1 to 3:1. This assumption is being cast into doubt by recent real world experience in 3G data networks. Two thirds of traffic bandwidth as shown from recent network studies by operators is PtP based. Person-to-Person traffic including personal video and file sharing requires more symmetrical bandwidth capacity. This trend likely to continue if not accelerates as new applications such as video conferencing and video posting/sharing come more into vogue. That helps tip the balance in favor of a more symmetrical and distributed technologies and network architecture. Although a wide range of solutions is required, the argument in favor of adaptive use of OFDMA for both uplink and downlink traffic and spatial domain enhancement to both increase capacity and reduce subscriber power requirement is growing.. These near-term technical differences may matter less in the long term to the two sister wireless developments than how business models are developed to use them. WiMAX plunges more directly toward an open IP business model including granular deployment and network segment ownership. 3G-LTE attempts to hold onto the incumbent prescribed service business model. While the two approaches can work together to some degree, longer term the open access IP disrupts the incumbent model.
WiMAX Success in Respect to LTE
Because the technologies and goals are similar, success of WiMAX comes down to execution and marketing and user preferences.. WiMAX is challenging the huge cellular industry for a place alongside it as wireless becomes increasingly a broadband applications platform. But, likewise, the incumbent mobile wireless industry is challenging to become the most personal and leveraged aspect for program applications, content and services for converged wired and wireless network environments.
Shai Yaniv, Sr. Director Corporate Marketing, Alvarion comments that for WiMAX “There is a huge market demand for personal and primary broadband for consumers and households in various regions. WiMAX in the next few years does not necessarily need to address the high vehicular speed applications, which are more associated with voice and audio-visual conversational applications. However, since WiMAX is clearly available before LTE, the time to market advantage WiMAX holds can bring it to fulfill mobile applications in various environments a well. Certainly, the technological capabilities exist and the industry will focus on creating the eco system to help make this happen if the market for WiMAX as a vehicular speed mobile system develops.”
“We should also be looking at the market dynamics with regards to what steps the non mobile carriers and ISPs will take to make space for personal broadband services in their portfolio. Mobile (3G) operators will need to assess their plans as well as considering LTE will not be available soon. This is even more the case for 2G carriers having no 3G spectrum.”
“WiMAX needs to keep up the momentum, particularly on the consumer electronics side which faces challenges leading the industry in use of antenna technologies”, Shai added.
Mr. Yaniv’s comments show both the convergence that is taking place among operator business models and challenges for WiMAX development. Open IP environments are needed to foster common technology development and manufacturing efficiencies but also cast several diverse businesses into competition.
The first task for long-term evolution of the wireless industry has been to construct a flexible framework standard and development environment. The IEEE 802.16 and WiMAX Forum have a significant portion of that work. Evolution of both systems and business models, what can be the more disruptive part still lay ahead
WiMAX has made progress in wireless development and in the perception of what it can deliver and where it is headed. WiMAX is a Long Term Evolutionary wireless platform.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Clash of the Titans: Open iPhone vs. Cell Phone Walled Garden
Clash of the Titans: What is Really Different about the Apple iPhone
Robert Syputa, Senior Analyst, Maravedis, Inc.
The Apple iPhone has entered the market with more fanfare than any product introduction in recent memory. This speculation has fueled by Apple’s success with the iPod, a music device that re-wrote the formula for success when it entered an already competitive market for portable MP3 players. The unique ‘it factor’ that Apple brings to the party is an intuitive but painstakingly designed approach to man-machine interface development that started with the first Macintosh PC and continues to breath fresh life into the company.
IPhone enters the market for cellphones and PDA devices at a point of maturity that many might have thought that only incremental improvements were possible. Underlying this introduction are deep rooted changes in the way wireless will evolve and how service providers will operate. What raises eyebrows most is not a new take on PDA cellphones but a new take on the business methods it represents… a disruptive change from business as usual for cellular network giants and fulcrum entry point for new operators.
A Look at the iPhone
My first impression of the iPhone was that this represents a similar KISS approach to product development ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’ as Apple has become renowned:
-
The "multi-touch" interface simplifies the typical buried-menu approach.
-
Hi-contrast, fast refresh 320x480 screen gives the impression of a larger screen
-
Software keyboard reduces size requirements, complexity but still has similar problems of other tiny keypads. We judge this as the iPhone’s worst feature.
The Dilemma of All IP:
Apple’s Steve Job’s has declared that that iPhone will be opened to 3rd party Web 2.0 application developers1. So far Apple has not released APIs to open iPhone to the Linux/AJAX development community raising immediate cries of foul from the development community2. One third party AJAX development extension has been reported.
This issue is the pivot point between the walled garden world of cellphones to the PC-like open environment of AIP (all IP) which begs the question: “How open does AT&T want their service to become?” AT&T may not wish to open up the iPhone OS X platform (code named Leopard) to 3rd party services including VoIP services which conflict with their bundled service offering. But once an API is widely available, what will stop 3rd party software from running? This is an important dilemma for operators who jump ahead: if 3rd party applications, such as a YouTube clone ‘on steroids’ take advantage of the bulkier bandwidth WiMAX personal broadband network catch fire with the public apetite, this will break open the walled garden business model of cellular providers.
How much and quickly incumbent networks operators will be willing to give up the assurance of revenues derived from captive control of cellphone services versus how much they can capitalize on the popularity of new services is galvanized by conclusion that a shift to open IP environment is inevitable. If incumbent operators strongly resist the shift, independent operators will have a more open field to exploit the pent-up interest of consumers as demonstrated by the iPhone.
What is the Impact of iPhone?
The immediate impact of Apple’s iPhone is more figurative than real: Estimates for market share have ranged from 1% to 2.8% of the worldwide and 7% U.S. market by 20093. These are quite remarkable forecasts considering the aggressive competition in the cellphone industry. What makes this believable is the success Apple has enjoyed in capturing market share for music players, setting a higher plateau of expectations for ease of use and functionality. Despite our comments on keyboard flaws and reported bugs (which Apple already claims to have fixed), we think Apple has succeeded in creating a new type of device that users are likely to find compelling. The real issue of wireless devices is not so much having a built-in camera, cellphone, and a host of applications but being able to use them easily. Nothing discloses this flaw in current wireless devices better than a show of hands of cellphone executives at industry trade shows when they are asked about their own use of menu-embedded functions: We have and others who have posed similar questions at recent events find that only a few hands are raised when asked about features such as use of video phones to capture live events or do teleconferencing. Among executives, using 3G phones for music is only a bit more popular. That is skewing the audience towards an audience most interested in business applications, but you might think that communications industry would be among the first to adopt leading trends. When asked why, respondents indicate that the functions are not easily accessed, a glaring admission.
The real impact of iPhone is that this represents a beach head in stimulating the market for acceptance of a wide range of services that will be available increasingly at the user’s preference. WiMAX represents use of a new technology platform but that is only a means to an end: the more substantial differentiation between WiMAX and WiFi compared to the walled garden of captive cellphone services is that it unleashes an open development platform in which software giants and new startup developers may capture the hearts, minds, and wallets of consumers.
The fact that this rolls out initially on AT&T’s limited bandwidth and QoS EDGE network is not happenstance: AT&T sold of their own crown jewel mobile unit and spectrum as recourse to earlier management decisions. As a consequence of the acquisition with
Degrees of Freedom
The difference between controlled development in computing environment markets and open ones is the degree of freedom that the user has to make choices. This stems as a consequence to how open the platform is to development within the framework of the standards and commercial mechanisms.
A key difference between WiMAX or WiFi and cellular wireless is the degree of freedom of the platform for application development. The business structure of the cellular industry is one in which applications from among which the user is chastised to make use are primarily determined by operators. This will be confronted by an open environment in which the operator must competitively package software, services and content from a growing number of suppliers using a skillfully intuitive interface. Otherwise, their ownership of the bandwidth highway will be overtaken by more streamlined fast traffic lanes of more adept NGMN entrepreneurs and their bandwidth service will quickly be pushed to commodity status.
The clamor for the iPhone shows some eccentricity of the market to be swayed by clever marketing but also real pent-up demand by people used to having the Internet served up their way. As broadband wireless become mobile personal broadband, expectations are likely to be a convergence of both Internet and mobile expectations.
What is most compelling about iPhone is that this is simply an opening volley which signals ability for outside players to bring compelling products to market that take advantage of PC and Internet developments. Despite noticeable faults including being deployed on a legacy network and a keyboard made for Lilliputians, iPhone marks a divergence in the way the wireless industry will unfold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)