WirelessHART
This has yielded, among others, WirelessHART, promoted by the HART Communication Foundation (HCF). The wired version of HART technology has an installed base of over 20 million units, and the wireless version aims to capitalize on that large existing deployment.

The members of HCF, companies like Emerson Process Management and Endress+Hauser, have fine-tuned the technology to solve problems they are intimately familiar with.

At least in theory, WirelessHART has all the right components to succeed in the market —well-understood problem, fine-tuned technology, and strong backing from industry insiders. It remains to be seen how the first products, which are slated to be released over the coming year, are going to perform in real-world conditions.

That is not to say that every supplier of process automation equipment is backing WirelessHART. Honeywell Process Solutions is pushing its own proprietary OneWireless technology instead, with a promise to adopt the measures outlined in the ISA's SP-100 specification once that is finalized.

An interesting trend to note is the coalescing of both suppliers and customers around the IEEE 802.15.4 specification. It turns out that 15.4 is a good transceiver and MAC technology to use for several applications, as long as the network protocol on running on top is fine-tuned to each application.

Some protocols are being standardized among alliances (ZigBee and WirelessHART), whereas others are building their own proprietary protocols on top of a standard transceiver technology.

The good news for designers is that many silicon vendors offer IEEE 802.15.4-compliant solutions, which will eventually mean lower costs and higher performance as the competition heats up. The good news for the silicon vendors is that whether or not a particular protocol like ZigBee or WirelessHART wins, the underlying transceiver is the same, and thus they have a chance to recuperate their investments. This has been one bright spot in the highly fragmented wireless market.

Moving away from industrial wireless applications to consumer applications, one WiEC technology that has had a sense of purpose from its inception is Z-Wave. Z-Wave is a proprietary technology being promoted by its creator, Zensys Inc, which also leads the Z-Wave Alliance of adopters.

Despite being a single-supplier technology for several years (the specification has recently been opened up to other silicon vendors), Z-Wave has created a moderately-sized ecosystem of adopters because it has specifically targeted home automation, and nothing else.

The Z-Wave Alliance pitted the technology as a lower cost, simpler alternative to ZigBee that still provided mesh networking capability. Focusing on the home automation market enabled Zensys to hone-in on problems more important to the consumer—low cost, ease of use, and compatibility between equipment from multiple vendors (lamp from one vendor, light switch from another).

It is not the most sophisticated wireless technology around—and its exceedingly simple architecture (very low data rates, for example) may in fact prevent it from being implemented in applications more complex than turning a light on or off. Similar to Z-Wave is another technology called INSTEON, which targets the same market, and has a comparably-sized ecosystem of vendors.

Wary consumers
Even with relatively simple WiEC technologies like Z-Wave and INSTEON, wide-spread adoption by consumers has been largely absent. The key reasons from an end-user perspective are cost and ease-of-use.

A regular light switch costs under $2. A Z-Wave enabled wireless light switch costs around $40—and of course it must have a wireless light source to communicate with, which is another $40+.

The 40x ($2 vs. $80) multiplier in price is tremendous for consumers, and the benefit obtained is not compelling enough to justify the added expense. Furthermore, installing a wireless system is still quite challenging, requiring optimal placement and configuration.

This is why ZigBee, Z-Wave and INSTEON remain in the domain of the custom-installer market, where well-off consumers spend thousands of dollars to have specialized companies come and outfit their homes with these wireless solutions. Consequently, these technologies still ship in low volumes, and healthy profits are nowhere to be found.

I once asked a marketing manager at a major lighting control company what it would take for such solutions to reach millions of units in shipping volumes. She said that this would only happen if each of the nodes cost the consumer under $5, and they were able to install it in their home unassisted.

It is clear that this goal is still far away; however, it is not beyond reach. So even though the promise of millions of small WiEC transceivers connecting the world remains unfulfilled today, it is only a matter of time before ubiquitous connectivity becomes a reality.

Businesses need it, consumers expect it, and smart engineers the world over will see to it that they deliver on their promise. It will take a better understanding of the markets, target applications, and the underlying motivations of customers to finally achieve that goal.

About the author
Sherif Hanna Strategic Marketing Manager for Wireless Solutions at Cypress Semiconductor Corp.