ZigBee real using

Hello dear ALL,

Is there any people that uses ZigBee products in big projects or all
worldwide Zigbee-related design are just small start-ups?

Regards.

On Jul 31, 3:14 am, "vazic....@gmail.com" <vazic....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there any people that uses ZigBee products in big projects or all
> worldwide Zigbee-related design are just small start-ups?

Most companies that make big projects have a great deal of interest in
ensuring their communications protocols are closed, so they can
restrict end-users to buying all components from a single source.

On Jul 31, 7:55 am, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:14 am, "vazic....@gmail.com" <vazic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there any people that uses ZigBee products in big projects or all
> > worldwide Zigbee-related design are just small start-ups?
>
> Most companies that make big projects have a great deal of interest in
> ensuring their communications protocols are closed, so they can
> restrict end-users to buying all components from a single source.

But I think big companies can benefit from mesh networking because
they can leverage products made by other companies to extend the range
of their own products. If you believe the marketing hype, the average
household will have many ZigBee devices someday so the range should
pretty much cover the entire house.

The high cost has been a hinderance to its adoption. And the RF
certification issues make it hard to incorporate into your design. The
RF antenna and board layout are also difficult for many logic-oriented
desigers to work with. A lot of companies are deploying products that
use certified daughter-boards or modules made by third parties to
avoid these issues. But they are a lot more expensive that way.

Eric

On 31 , 23:40, Eric <englere_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 7:55 am, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 3:14 am, "vazic....@gmail.com" <vazic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is there any people that uses ZigBee products in big projects or all
> > > worldwide Zigbee-related design are just small start-ups?
>
> > Most companies that make big projects have a great deal of interest in
> > ensuring their communications protocols are closed, so they can
> > restrict end-users to buying all components from a single source.
>
> But I think big companies can benefit from mesh networking because
> they can leverage products made by other companies to extend the range
> of their own products. If you believe the marketing hype, the average
> household will have many ZigBee devices someday so the range should
> pretty much cover the entire house.
>
> The high cost has been a hinderance to its adoption. And the RF
> certification issues make it hard to incorporate into your design. The
> RF antenna and board layout are also difficult for many logic-oriented
> desigers to work with. A lot of companies are deploying products that
> use certified daughter-boards or modules made by third parties to
> avoid these issues. But they are a lot more expensive that way.
>
> Eric

I don't think, that big OEMs can have a problem in finding good RF
engineer for HW design. At my point of view - before ZigBee2006 it
wasn't possible to create product for Home Automation that should work
with products from other vendors. But Z2006 changed that thing so we
could expect huge growth of this market...

"larwe" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> On Jul 31, 3:14 am, "vazic....@gmail.com" <vazic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there any people that uses ZigBee products in big projects or all
>> worldwide Zigbee-related design are just small start-ups?
>
> Most companies that make big projects have a great deal of interest in
> ensuring their communications protocols are closed, so they can
> restrict end-users to buying all components from a single source.

and whilst some have found this a successful business model,
others have found it a way for your (potential) customers not to
buy your product at all.

tim

On Aug 2, 6:19 am, "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > Most companies that make big projects have a great deal of interest in
>
> and whilst some have found this a successful business model,
> others have found it a way for your (potential) customers not to

It is successful for the big market players, who sell a complete set
of everything - and I understood that was the thrust of the OP's
question. ZigBee is kinda like X11 - everyone understands it, but only
small niche players actually care about it.

That's a fundamental problem with home automation products (and
related features like HVAC, security, fire safety, etc): supporting an
open comms standard can grow market share if you're currently a tiny
player, but if you're currently a dominant player, it only opens up
your markets to excessive competition.

A stated goal of most large companies is to raise barriers to entry in
their active markets. Developing and popularizing closed
communications protocols (and patenting aspects of those protocols in
order to make reverse-engineered products illegal) is one tool to
achieve this.

"larwe" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> On Aug 2, 6:19 am, "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Most companies that make big projects have a great deal of interest in
>>
>> and whilst some have found this a successful business model,
>> others have found it a way for your (potential) customers not to
>
> It is successful for the big market players, who sell a complete set
> of everything - and I understood that was the thrust of the OP's
> question. ZigBee is kinda like X11 - everyone understands it, but only
> small niche players actually care about it.
>
> That's a fundamental problem with home automation products (and
> related features like HVAC, security, fire safety, etc): supporting an
> open comms standard can grow market share if you're currently a tiny
> player, but if you're currently a dominant player, it only opens up
> your markets to excessive competition.

I agree with you if you are the first to market the closed
system. But if there is already an 'expected' protocol
in place and some companies are working to that
standard, going to market with a proprietary system
would seem to be the way not to win many customers.

tim

On Aug 2, 12:10 pm, "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> system. But if there is already an 'expected' protocol
> in place and some companies are working to that
> standard, going to market with a proprietary system
> would seem to be the way not to win many customers.

I've got one word for you: Microsoft.

Suppose there is an existing market for widgets. Some flavors of
widget are expensive and unprofitable (very difficult to design), and
people usually only buy one. Some flavors of widget are cheap to make,
little effort to design, and profitable, and most people buy several.

Suppose you are one of the three major world suppliers of widgets with
a leading market share in the markets that matter.

Suppose a small company develops a method of networking widgets and
consumers love the idea.

Your three options are:

1. Ignore the idea of networking widgets and lose market share.

2. Make your widgets compatible with the small company's protocol. A
small number of early adopter consumers are made very happy. A large
number of competitors erode your market share for cheap widgets. They
can't compete with you on expensive widgets because there's too much
engineering in them - but they drive down the price of cheap widgets
and start people buying heterogeneous systems which hurt your
profitability.

3. Make a completely incompatible system that fulfils the same
customer need. A few early adopters of the small company's system are
inconvenienced. However your competition is locked out of your
existing markets, and you gain market share because you now have a new
feature.

This exact scenario plays out every day.

"larwe" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> On Aug 2, 12:10 pm, "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> system. But if there is already an 'expected' protocol
>> in place and some companies are working to that
>> standard, going to market with a proprietary system
>> would seem to be the way not to win many customers.
>
> I've got one word for you: Microsoft.

and what already agreed standard did MS ignore?

> Suppose there is an existing market for widgets. Some flavors of
> widget are expensive and unprofitable (very difficult to design), and
> people usually only buy one. Some flavors of widget are cheap to make,
> little effort to design, and profitable, and most people buy several.
>
> Suppose you are one of the three major world suppliers of widgets with
> a leading market share in the markets that matter.
>
> Suppose a small company develops a method of networking widgets and
> consumers love the idea.
>
> Your three options are:
>
> 1. Ignore the idea of networking widgets and lose market share.
>
> 2. Make your widgets compatible with the small company's protocol. A
> small number of early adopter consumers are made very happy. A large
> number of competitors erode your market share for cheap widgets. They
> can't compete with you on expensive widgets because there's too much
> engineering in them - but they drive down the price of cheap widgets
> and start people buying heterogeneous systems which hurt your
> profitability.
>
> 3. Make a completely incompatible system that fulfils the same
> customer need. A few early adopters of the small company's system are
> inconvenienced. However your competition is locked out of your
> existing markets, and you gain market share because you now have a new
> feature.
>
> This exact scenario plays out every day.

4) there are lots of small companies all making equipment that
talks to each other.

ISTM that the OP suggested that Zigbee was in this category.
Therefore it makes no sense for the bigger players not to join
in.

This is not the same as saying that the bigger companies
cannot make their own alternativce products.

tim

On Aug 2, 2:40 pm, "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


> 4) there are lots of small companies all making equipment that
> talks to each other.
>
> ISTM that the OP suggested that Zigbee was in this category.
> Therefore it makes no sense for the bigger players not to join
> in.

No, it still makes sense for bigger players to use their own protocol
because they have a large incumbent customer base who will adopt those
protocols automatically by default. If you believe otherwise, you
don't understand the commercial reality of the situation.

Again, think Microsoft. MP3 was an open standard. They developed WMA.
MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 were open standards. Microsoft developed WMV. Etc,
etc, etc. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.