Is Zigbee the Next Bluetooth?
bz asks: "I work for a small product development company that is considering the use of RF. Naturally, it seems that it would be easier to use a proprietary protocol rather than some of the standards on the market. We are restricted by small code space and low power. The Zigbee protocol needs more memory than we would like to give up. Naturally, if Zigbee is going to become ubiquitous, we would like to sacrifice the extra memory and jump on the bandwagon. However, if it is only going to be as popular as Bluetooth, we would prefer to pass. Is Zigbee going to succeed, or is it likely to follow along the low road that Bluetooth has already paved?"
> Is ZigBee going to succeed ...and while you're at it, what are the winning numbers for this weekend's Powerball?
Perfectly Normal Industries
It is unlikely that zigbee is going to make inroads into the consumer market at all, nevermind as much as bluetooth has done.
Zigbee will be good for connected sensor networks. I suppose eventually someone will start selling personal area networks using zigbee, but those haven't caught on yet, and I doubt zigbee is going to make any significant inroads.
The only advantage to using a standard is interoperability and cheap existing hardware/software. Since zigbee has few standards about what the devices can do and how they are to interact with each other on the application layer, then there is little or no interoperability. Sure, the lightswitch and thermostat have zigbee, but the thermostat has to understand what a lightswitch is and what it does before it can intelligently set the temperature based on the occupancy of the room (presumably based on whether the lights were just turned on).
Since there are no standards for anything but the lowest layers in zigbee, then it is only marginally better than using a proprietary standard. At best when other products come out you can flash yours to understand how to interact, but that's another step down a path that is likely to lead nowhere.
The only advantage to Zigbee is that it can be cheaper in some cases to implement - where you need a rather significant and robust network, but don't want to spend the time and money developing all the prototcols to manage such a beast. If you're doing very simple point to point communications, then zigbee isn't going to save you anything. Or, in other words, if zigbee is more expensive (chipset, code, memory, etc) to implement than another solution, pick the other solution. In some cases it'll be cheaper - when the other solution will take a year to develop and test, and you have more expensive radio components than the zigbee chipsets due to complexity.
-Adam
Home automation is really cool, but how many people are going to use it?
Radio Shack has (used to?) sold the "X11" modules since the early/mid 80s... They could control lights, fans, thermostat, etc... I think they even had them intergrated into light switches, etc... And they had a module that could be programmed with a computer to automate everything... Even had something so that you could control the house from a telephone...
Sadly, this seems to have gone the way of the Dodo bird and the Clapper...
Even as far as luxury items go, the general public isn't all that interested in most of the crap that academics dream up in order to lengthen their publication list...
Wireless Sensor Networks supposedly are the "Next Great Thing", but I really don't many people using this for other than military surveilance...
Disclaimer: I am a grad student... And I'm starting to think that most of academica is wasting their time....
Its kinda humorous to think about the difficult topics in MIMO-OFDM communications, when the end result will be a teenager gabbing away on a next-generation phone, while IMing her buddies and watching streaming videos all at the same time.