Zigbee Devices finally coming 2006 Q1

[ChrisWalker]

Tombo:

If the first Zigbee-compliant products come to market soon, it will be interesting to see if a person can buy a starter kit for under $100 with a remote and a device or two--and can easily set it up.

As I understand it, the first "Zigbee-derivative" devices cost about $600+ to start out, because they require an access point for portable remote controls to be able to talk to the network.

Chris

 

[tedsingh]

I received the following in an email yesterday from ChipCon, a major supplier of ZigBee chips and accessories - they have been acquired by Texas Instruments.

Texas Instruments and Chipcon have some exciting news that we would like to share with you. Texas Instruments today announced they will acquire Chipcon. The acquisition expands TI’s short-range wireless portfolio with market-leading, low-power RF transceiver devices. Combining Chipcon’s design experience in RF transceiver components with TI's advanced analog silicon technologies and broad systems expertise will enhance our ability to offer customers complete short-range wireless solutions for consumer, home and building automation applications.

The ZigBee standard is a good match for TI's low-power uC chipsets, though our ZigBee development system uses Atmel uCs.

Ted

 

[elcano]

Elcano,

I dont know much about UPB but they look a little pricey.

Agree 100%.

That's why I said 'most probably', and why I'm waiting a few months to see if Z-Wave vendors finally release a new line of "live status" ready 2-way communications devices. As I said, this is a show stopper for me.

 

[rocco]

I no one person governs the protocol then who is responsible for enforcing it?

The ZigBee Alliance enforces the ZigBee specification. No manufacturer can use the ZigBee logo without going through ZigBee certification (similar to UL certification). So far, the ZigBee Alliance has setup two testing centers to perform certification, but (as far as I know) only "platforms" have been certified. Platforms are the chips and firmware sets that can be used by device manufacturers in their systems.

Control4, AMX and Crestron have devices that are based on ZigBee platforms, so they can claim IEEE 802.15.4 compatibility. They cannot claim ZigBee compatibility, because they are not compatible. Matter of fact, there was NO ZigBee at all at EHX in Anaheim. None. I got the feeling that Control4, AMX and Crestron all preferred the "proprietary" feel of their products. There is no market pressure to be "compatible" at this point in time.

The ZigBee specification is one year old this month, so it is still pretty young. When you consider that it is an order of magnitude more sophisticated than ZWave, it's not a surprise that there are not many devices yet. My ZigBee development is targeted toward industry, where they are willing to pay much larger dollars than in the home automation market.

But ZigBee will come. I see it coming in thermostats and security sensors before light switches. I'm not sure it can displace ZWave for use in lighting. But from a price standpoint, ZenSys will have a hard time competing against the likes of Microchip, Mitsubishi, Motorola, NEC, Philips, Samsung, SGS-Thomson and Texas Instruments, all making chips that compete against ZWave.

Just my .02 euro . . .

 

[ChrisWalker]

So far, the ZigBee Alliance has setup two testing centers to perform certification, but (as far as I know) only "platforms" have been certified.

...

But from a price standpoint, ZenSys will have a hard time competing against the likes of Microchip, Mitsubishi, Motorola, NEC, Philips, Samsung, SGS-Thomson and Texas Instruments, all making chips that compete against ZWave.

Very interesting points.

So, is it correct then that it's not even possible yet to create a Zigbee certified device for resell, since there is no program in place to even certify them yet? If so, then there's no way that Zigbee devices are really coming Q1 (which starts in a week).

Also, from a price standpoint, Zensys has announced a roadmap to bring the price of the Z-Wave chips down to $1 USD (from their current ~$3 USD). And as I understand it other companies (like some of those you mentioned) may start making Z-Wave chips in the future as well.

Chris

 

[Tombo]

So are there Z-wave certified Devices out there? Dont tell me the Zwave logo means it certified. I have alot of ACT stuff that carries the logo but does not seem compliant. 1 week till I get the new Intermatic stuff. Cant wait.

What I like about the Eaton stuff is that I can flash upgrade their base station. Is that possible with Zwave ?

"
Open Standards

The Home Heartbeat system will not be a dead end. A USB port on the base allows for firmware updates and customization, and the entire wireless communication capability is up-gradable to whatever standards are most current
"


Tom

 

[ChrisWalker]

So are there Z-wave certified Devices out there? Dont tell me the Zwave logo means it certified. I have alot of ACT stuff that carries the logo but does not seem compliant. 1 week till I get the new Intermatic stuff. Cant wait.

What I like about the Eaton stuff is that I can flash upgrade their base station. Is that possible with Zwave ?

Tombo,

Z-Wave has had a self-certification process in place for a long time, which is one of the things that keeps the cost of developing Z-Wave devices down.

As you noted, a few devices have been "self certified" that didn't actually quite meet the protocol standard. The Z-Wave Alliance announced at EHX in November that they are now providing a compliance test tool to the members to ensure that software and hardware is truly compliant, and Zensys has added a no-additional-charge verification step to the certification/logo process. Many new products being certified in the first quarter will be the first to have gone through both of these new steps.

There is also the issue of building good hardware/software in the first place, which is part of what you are alluding to Just like there are really bad Bluetooth devices out there (which work fine Bluetooth wise, but are not built to really high standards), you'll see the same with Z-Wave or any other widely-adopted standard. But the market will sort that out, as consumers check on the quality of various manufacturers before putting down their hard-earned dollars.

And yes, it is possible to firmware-update Z-Wave devices. I have already seen one device which does this, and expect to see many more with that capability as well. In fact, some exciting news coming out of Zensys this morning (which should be announced publicly shortly) shows just one of the reasons why this in-field upgradability is so cool.

Chris

 

[Tombo]

"In fact, some exciting news coming out of Zensys this morning (which should be announced publicly shortly) shows just one of the reasons why this in-field upgradability is so cool."

So how do you know everything ahead of time. The Zwavealliance members get news first I guess. Somebody will spill the beans.

Thanks
Tom

 

[rocco]

So, is it correct then that it's not even possible yet to create a Zigbee certified device for resell, since there is no program in place to even certify them yet?

As far as I know, the certification program has been in place and operating since last spring. A number of the platforms have been certified (including one that I am using), but I have heard of no end products that have been certified yet.

I believe the ZigBee Alliance is giving priority to the platforms, so maybe manufacturers are still in the queue. Maybe products have been certified, but the manufacturers have not announced it. Or maybe the industrial manufacturers are in the queue first.

In any case, I would not hold my breath during the first quarter.

 

[ChrisWalker]

So how do you know everything ahead of time. The Zwavealliance members get news first I guess. Somebody will spill the beans.

Tom,

There are a few big "Z-Wave" things happening over the Christmas weekend, actually.

One of the coolest ones is the release of Z-Wave v4.10. We (and a number of other major Z-Wave Alliance companies) worked closely with Zensys and gave them a lot of real-world and analytical feedback on various Z-Wave releases from the last few years, and they have worked really hard to make v4.10 the most well-designed major release to date. This was an awesome Christmas present to the whole Z-Wave community.

And, of course, the Z-Wave PC SDK already works great with Z-Wave v4.10. We're adding a few new things to the SDK to take advantage of some of the cool new (engineering-level) features as well.

[BTW, for reference, Zigbee is now at v1.0, and manufacturers are struggling to figure out how to make affordable, reliable real-world solutions using it; accordingly, most or all products built on one of the 802.15.4 implementations are not built as Zigbee 1.0 solutions.]

Chris

 

[Dean Roddey]

I cannot see any reason that Zigbee, on purely technical reasons, wouldn't dominate. It has far more bandwidth, is closer to UPB in terms of the smarts in the network, and will be much more practical to do larger networks with. Of course technical reasons are never the only criteria. They have to be reasonably close to Z-Wave in cost, though they are superior in a number of ways and can justify a somewhat higher cost I think.

I would assume that Crestron/C4 actually have large disincentives to become compatible, since they then couldn't make you buy their stuff, you could buy any stuff out there for the best price. Even if Zigbee was already a perfectly formed and in the field standard I would think that they would have made the incompatible in some way for their own business reasons.

If you are basing your business model on a retro-fit model, or you are looking for ways to expand your market which kinds of requires retro-fit friendly stuff, you would be looking at a lot of your bits and pieces being RF based, and if your customer doesn't have to come to you to buy them, that's kind of a problem, right?

 

[ChrisWalker]

I cannot see any reason that Zigbee, on purely technical reasons, wouldn't dominate. It has far more bandwidth, is closer to UPB in terms of the smarts in the network, and will be much more practical to do larger networks with.

Far more bandwidth? Smarts in the network closer to UPB? Dominate for technical reasons? Please explain.

Chris

 

[rocco]

[BTW, for reference, Zigbee is now at v1.0, and manufacturers are struggling to figure out how to make affordable, reliable real-world solutions using it; accordingly, most or all products built on one of the 802.15.4 implementations are not built as Zigbee 1.0 solutions.]

And that is an important point.

It's one thing to produce a spec, it's quite another to produce code to support the spec. Add to that the fact that ZigBee 1.0 is far more complex than ZWave (they don't want to ever have a 2.0), it is not surprising that it is taking this long.

Dean makes a good point that on the technical merits, ZigBee should kick ZWave's back-end. But for a lighting application, features like 128 bit encryption, self-forming networks and dynamic routing tables are just not necessary. ZWave's inertia in the marketplace may be the only advantage it needs.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Far more bandwidth? Smarts in the network closer to UPB? Dominate for technical reasons? Please explain.

192Kb/s vs 9600b/s is obviously far more bandwidth. And if you read through the Zigbee technical features, it reads more like the UPB stuff in terms of the level of sophistication of the way the network is managed. The fact they are targeting industrial and commercial applications would kind of require that, and I would assume that this is why Crestron/C4 both went that direction for their RF stuff.

 

[rocco]

Far more bandwidth? Smarts in the network closer to UPB? Dominate for technical reasons? Please explain.

Raw Bandwidth:
ZWave is 9,600 bits/second.
ZigBee is 250,000 bits/second.

Examples of Smarts:
You don't "build" the network, as in ZWave; It builds itself.

The coordinators scan all channels and picks the quietest.

Routing is constantly being evaluated and routes re-organized.

Nodes can be moved around freely.

No single or multiple failure will bring down the network.

128 bit encryption, with either network-wide keys, or private keys between two nodes.

Multiple ZigBee networks can co-exist in the same space without interference.

Allocated bandwidth. Devices can be guaranteed a portion of the network bandwidth.


The list goes on and on. But for some applications, the features may not be applicable. For many applications, like security, the technical merits will push manufacturers toward ZigBee.