InformationWeek Stories by Craig Mathias

InformationWeek Stories by Craig Mathiashttp://www.informationweek.comInformationWeeken-usCopyright 2012, UBM LLC.2012-12-07T08:02:00ZWLANs Will Provision Apps In 2013With virtualization now entrenched as the preferred IT strategy, look for servers and even storage inside of wireless LAN controllers. http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/wlan/wlans-will-provision-apps-in-2013/240143989?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_government<div class="inlineStoryImage inlineStoryImageRight"><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/cloud-computing/infrastructure/7-dumb-myths-about-cloud-computing/240124922"><img src="http://twimgs.com/informationweek/graphics_library/175x175/money_cloud.jpg" alt="7 Dumb Cloud Computing Myths" title="7 Dumb Cloud Computing Myths" class="img175" /></a> <div class="storyImageTitle">7 Dumb Cloud Computing Myths</div> (click image for larger view and for slideshow)</div>It's that time of year again, when analysts write all those dreadful forecasts-for-the-coming-year columns that are always at least mildly entertaining but, well, often wrong. Such is the nature of predicting the future, but there is one forecast for 2013 that I am absolutely, positively certain of: The wireless LAN (WLAN), which has evolved over the past two decades from curiosity to essential -- and from slow, expensive, unreliable, unmanageable security hole to primary access for just about everyone -- is about to undergo yet another transformation. This time it goes right to the core of enterprise IT strategies: the app. Wireless LANs will not just enable access to but optimize and even provision applications. Yes, you read that right: Apps will be implemented within the WLAN. I know, I know. This is reminiscent of that "network is the computer" slogan of a decade ago from a certain now-defunct computer company. But such is pretty much what is happening here regardless. We're going from access to the apps themselves. Such a development is actually easy to predict. It's perfectly natural for such functional consolidations to take place. What, after all, is IT really about? Collecting, managing, transforming, and disseminating information. And how is all this done? Over a network, increasingly wireless both indoors and out, with the back end consisting of routers, switches, servers, storage and assorted appliances. So it makes a lot of sense for the network to have knowledge of apps, and, increasingly, to be the vehicle that not only distributes but also hosts and manages these apps. [ Read <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/802dot11x/wireless-lans-new-standard-80211ac-prep/240006274?itc=edit_in_body_cross">Wireless LAN's New Standard, 802.11ac: Prep Time</a>. ] When you consider that today's enterprise-class WLANs include all manner of management services across Layers 1-3, extending these facilities all the way to Layer 7 isn't really that big of a deal. We're already seeing advances in identity management and other applications driven by -- and, again resident in – wireless LANs. I've gone so far as to predict that the unified wired/wireless network strategy I've long advocated -- and implemented largely in, yes, applications -- will be extended to the domain of application management directly. The primary driver here? Ease of use. Overburdened and underfunded IT and network operations staffs will look upon this consolidation of function as a godsend. Still skeptical? Here are a couple of examples. Let's start with Aruba's just-announced <a href="http://www.arubanetworks.com/news-releases/first-wireless-lan-platform-optimized-for-mobile-app-delivery/">7200 series of controllers</a>, featuring what the company calls AppRF, a facility that enhances application delivery via deep packet inspection, airtime fairness, enhanced QoS, and controller-optimized traffic delivery. Knowledge of applications needs isn't quite the same as provisioning those applications, but it's easy to see where this facility might go over time. Xirrus also just added deep packet inspection to its <a href="http://www.xirrus.com/Products/Network-Services/Application-Control">Wi-Fi arrays</a>, and such might become quite common over the next few years. Even closer to my thesis is Cisco's Mobility Services Engine (MSE), a wireless/mobility-centric application platform that recently received a slew of enhancements that were mostly lost in the news of the Meraki acquisition. (That itself is an application play as well, by the way; cloud-based network management is in fact an application.) Cisco recently showcased a number of novel <a href="http://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-content?type=webcontent&articleId=1105153">location-based apps and enhancements</a> to the MSE's SDK and analytics capabilities. Analytics is still picking up steam but is also a clear trend going forward. Then, of course, there is the holy grail of LAN traffic: video. It's abundantly clear that caching this bandwidth hog as close as possible to the ultimate consumer is an excellent way to optimize network capacity and throughput. Big disks are cheap, and locating them inside a WLAN controller is also, I believe, going to become common. We're already really close to it, what with the virtualization of WLAN controllers already here. I find it encouraging that apps and networks are finally coming together. We've reached a certain sufficiency in wireless today, meaning that we can address essentially any WLAN performance requirement. With radio-related innovation consequently slowing a bit -- 2013 won't be the year of 802.11ac, and I'm not expecting any big developments in PHYs beyond this anyway -- the focus shifts quite naturally to applications, again, the raison d'etre for IT in the first place. Even if radio performance were peaking, WLANs remain key to overall IT success. It's a place that, after 20 years of evolution, the WLAN most certainly deserves. On a different note, this will be my final column for InformationWeek. I've truly enjoyed the privilege of being here for the past four years, but it's time to move on. I wish everyone all the best with their wireless and mobile endeavors, and, of course, a pleasant holiday season and a productive new year.2012-10-15T13:09:00ZShould You Buy From Huawei?Congress says U.S. companies should not purchase products from Chinese firms Huawei and ZTE, citing national security concerns. I say Congress is dealing more in fear than facts.http://www.informationweek.com/news/240009059?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentWarning: this column is really about politics. But isn't everything these days? The U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently issued <a href="http://intelligence.house.gov/press-release/investigative-report-us-national-security-issues-posed-chinese-telecommunications">a positively scathing report</a> on Chinese telecommunications equipment giants Huawei and ZTE that basically suggested, yeah, um, let's go with this: U.S. companies should not buy equipment from these two vendors. They cited, among other factors, a lack of transparency in the Committee's dealings with representatives of these two firms, and allegations of impropriety. With no hard evidence presented, the U.S. government is using little more than suspicion and innuendo to accuse both Chinese firms of being fronts for the government of China and its military. The cellular base station as an instrument of foreign intelligence? This from a government that already claims the right to intercept any traffic it wants (presumably with a court order, of course)? OK, I was a political-science major before I switched to technology, and I was active in politics, including elective office, for many years before getting on with other matters. I've held government security clearances and I strongly believe that the U.S. government and military should absolutely buy American. But I also believe in a global economy and that ultimately, world peace and prosperity depend upon global economic progress, yes, through global competition. [ For more on Congress's concerns with Huawei and ZTE, read <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/government/security/why-huawei-has-congress-worried/240008681?itc=edit_in_body_cross">Why Huawei Has Congress Worried</a>. ] It would be one thing if the U.S. government had hard evidence with which to charge these offshore firms, but what we have here appears to be little more than thinly disguised protectionism, paranoia, and borderline psychosis from an institution that itself has no problem with running up $1 trillion in new debt every year, has approval ratings from its own constituents barely above zero, and lacks the technical and business skills to have even a clue what it's talking about. Really, who's kidding whom here? Is this simply the groundwork for the Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson Full-Employment Act? That's right; we don't make cellular base stations here anymore. Now, I'm not saying that the companies in question haven't done anything wrong. But I, too, have no hard data one way or the other. As you've no doubt heard, there's already a good deal of controversy surrounding Huawei. Perhaps you saw the "60 Minutes" piece on October 7. Essentially, criticism of the company revolves around two core claims: that Huawei steals intellectual property, and that the firm is a front for the Chinese army and/or government. Again, I have no reliable data on either of these, but I do understand the concern. China is an emerging economic power, and throughout history, some emerging economic powers have sometimes engaged in activities that in retrospect were bad ideas--not the least of which were slavery and the wholesale slaughter of indigenous peoples, just for example. While the theft of IP and hidden motives are indeed serious concerns, we most certainly do not have anything unusual going on here. Misappropriation of IP occurs throughout our industry, from an inadvertent violation of patent rights to a programmer using a proprietary technique learned at a past job for a new employer--and we have mechanisms for redress in place. But most importantly, keep in mind that Huawei is a $30+ billion firm, and it is simply beyond comprehension that such a company would risk everything--literally everything--and that the government of China would risk war--yes, war--by committing acts that are clearly overt threats to others, including customers, users, and/or foreign governments. Let's suppose, just for example, that Huawei has logic deep in its custom chips that seeks out sensitive data and forwards it to secret locations. Could anyone honestly believe that this activity wouldn't eventually be detected? And the very least of the consequences of such shenanigans would likely be an immediate reprisal at the governmental level, effectively putting the company out of business. Think what would happen if Alcatel-Lucent, or Cisco, or Enterasys, or Ericsson, or any other company did something like this--such would not be recoverable. The management of Huawei certainly knows this, no matter what the Chinese government might desire or even demand. Politics is one of the most important elements of human culture, and it should never be discounted or underestimated--indeed, consider how the current domestic election cycle is reshaping America itself. But politics translated into technology can't be kept secret or strategic for very long. For now, and until an offshore equipment supplier is unequivocally exposed as an agent of a foreign power, it deserves the benefit of the doubt, with the company's products and services evaluated on their technical, business, and financial merits alone. Just my two cents, of course, but all of us--customers, users, and residents of this planet--are better off when we just stick to the facts. And dear members of Congress, you lack those at present. Note: neither Huawei nor ZTE are clients of Farpoint Group. Cybersecurity, continuity planning, and data records management top the list in our latest Federal IT Priorities Survey. Also in the new, all-digital <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/gogreen/081312gov/?k=axxe&cid=article_axxt_os">Focus On The Foundation</a> issue of InformationWeek Government: The FBI's next-gen digital case management system, Sentinel, is finally up and running. (Free registration required.)2012-09-18T08:41:00ZWireless Innovation Slows, And That's A Good ThingApple's incremental iPhone updates aren't slowing sales, and they're allowing us to plan more rationally. How can that be bad?http://www.informationweek.com/news/240007466?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_government <div class="inlineStoryImage inlineStoryImageRight"> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/handheld/iphone-5-10-best-features/240007294"><img src="http://twimgs.com/informationweek/galleries/automated/868/iPhone_5_1st _slide_175.jpg" alt="iPhone 5's 10 Best Features" title="iPhone 5's 10 Best Features" class="img175" /></a> <div class="storyImageTitle">iPhone 5's 10 Best Features</div> (click image for larger view and for slideshow) </div>  Last year's announcement of the iPhone 4S was viewed by almost everyone as a disappointment. It was pretty much a warmed-over iPhone 4 with the clever but not overly useful Siri voice command system and a few other minor improvements. No LTE. Same screen. I described it as a rare swing-and-a-miss from what is otherwise the best marketing organization on the planet. Of course, Apple sold zillions of them. The rollout might have been disappointing, but the outcome was never in doubt. Apple has now made another incremental hop ("leap," I believe, would go much too far here) with the iPhone 5, which does indeed have a larger screen, better battery life, a faster processor, and, most importantly LTE, which I'll return to shortly. And yet, if you look closely, we still see only relatively minor incremental enhancements over the 4S. Really, is the iPhone 5 something to get wait-all-night-for-one excited about? And so to the key question for today: are the days of radical improvements, enhancements, and innovation in wireless and mobile technologies behind us? Well, no, not as such--but the rate of innovation is slowing, and--this is indeed surprising--that's truly a good thing. Wait a minute there, I can here you saying--this is an industry that has practically been defined by weekly (or so it seems) leaps (and not mere hops) in capability, be that in throughput, price/performance, packaging and industrial design, software (both systems and applications), management, and much, much more. Is it really time to close the patent office here? Can it be that the handsets, wireless LANs, and wireless networks of today will pretty much remain as they are from this point forward? Well, no, I'd never argue that innovation is dead, but it is slowing. Case in point number one, as already noted, is iPhone 5. There's <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/smart-phones/ios-6-apple-headed-for-design-rut/240007261">not much new here</a>--it represents a nice upgrade for current users whose wireless contracts are up for renewal, and that's about it. As is the case with a minor change in your eyeglass prescription, there's no urgent reason beyond, perhaps, the need to make a fashion statement, to run out and buy a new pair. Apple will regardless sell zillions of these, too. [ Innovation is alive. Take a look at <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/interviews/20-great-ideas-to-steal/240006553?itc=edit_in_body_cross">20 Great Ideas To Steal In 2012</a>. ] And, to be fair, what else might they have done with this product? Customers love the iPhone, and there's really nothing here to dislike. Even the new connector has an adapter for old accessories. But there's no radical innovation, and no departure from what we think of as a contemporary smartphone. After all, remember the original iPhone? Hot debate, and far from universal accolades. Bottom line: radical and new lead to questions. Slow and steady lead to orders.   <div style="margin:0; padding:0 0 10px 15px; width:244px; float:right;"> <div style="margin:0; border-top:1px solid black; border-bottom:1px solid black; padding:6px;"> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/"><img src="http://twimgs.com/infoweek/1217/217ID_GlobalCIO_75.jpg" width="75" height="75" border="0" align="right" alt="Global CIO" style="margin:0 0 6px 6px;"></a> <div style="margin:0 0 6px 0; font-size:1.3em; font-weight:bold; color:#113e53;">Global CIOs: A Site Just For You</div> Visit <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/">InformationWeek's Global CIO</a> -- our online community and information resource for CIOs operating in the global economy. </div> </div>   And what about LTE 4G? I'm convinced that Apple held off on LTE this long (remember, there are lots of <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/smart-phones/5-alternatives-to-the-apple-iphone-5/240007366">other LTE handsets on the market</a> today) because the carriers simply were not ready--and, gulp, might still not be ready--for the onslaught of demand that an LTE-based iPhone is sure to generate. But we've had another year of network buildout since the 4S, and the situation today is likely to be at least manageable. Still, LTE is going to get drowned in demand. The shift to metered data will mitigate this some degree (that's why we got it in the first place, after all), but the only real hope for the near term is workable Wi-Fi offload. Why? Because the follow-on to LTE, LTE Advanced, is many, many years off, primarily for economic but also for logistical reasons. More spectrum? Maybe, but, again, such is not imminent. And let's shift over to Wi-Fi. I've been running tests on the first pre-standard three-stream 802.11ac products, and I'm seeing essentially double the performance of three-stream 802.11n-based products--approaching, no kidding, 500 Mbps. That's amazing by any standard, but what's next after that? While I expect some power users will see multi-gigabit Layer-7 performance from products based on 802.11ad, and possibly some advanced 802.11ac systems (the .11ac standard approaches 7 Gbps in a full-blown implementation), most of us will be very content with that 500 Mbps or so and will have little incentive to upgrade beyond that for quite some time, if ever. So--why is all of this good news? Because IT managers--and, to a great degree, even consumers--will now be able to plan operations and purchases more rationally, without fear of obsolescence before full depreciation occurs. We will have sufficiency--enough in terms of handsets, wide-area wireless services (assuming, again, Wi-Fi offload where possible), and wireless LANs, to do essentially anything we need to do, and to do so cost-effectively and with the reliability and management essential to success. So, then, a slowing rate of innovation may not be good for us in the analyst community, but it's terrific for customers and real users everywhere. Expect explosive growth across all of these domains over the next few years--there's no longer any reason to wait for what's next. And the iPhone 6? Trust me, it'll be really, really boring.2012-08-28T09:08:00ZWireless LAN's New Standard, 802.11ac: Prep TimeFirst products appearing based on wireless LAN standard that delivers 1.3 Gbps, and up to 7 Gbps in some cases. Start planning now.http://www.informationweek.com/news/240006274?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentThe first products based on one of the key (and still under development) next-generation IEEE wireless-LAN standards, 802.11ac, are now appearing. If you've not studied up on 802.11ac yet, this technological advance offers a broad range of performance, with 1.3 Gbps (!) destined to become common, and almost 7 Gbps possible in exotic implementations (which, to be fair, we don't expect to see for some time or in great numbers). Still, think about this: 20 years ago, you might have seen a megabit per second over the air, on a good day, downhill, with a tailwind. Today you can get 1,300 times that much in a product that sells for less than US$200. Truly, high tech at its finest. OK, then. But these early 802.11ac products are residential-class. When will we see enterprise 802.11ac products? How can we integrate them efficiently with our 802.11n installations? And what should we be doing now? So far, only Cisco has announced an enterprise-class product of this type, which is an add-on module for its top-of-the-line 3600 series of access points. I'm not expecting native enterprise-class products until around the middle of next year. But the good news is that these should be fairly mature in terms of underlying chipsets and drivers, so 802.11ac absolutely belongs in your planning starting, well, now. While throughput of 1.3 Gbps isn't a requirement for too many applications beyond bulk file transfer and backup, it's more important to think in terms of capacity. Each Wi-Fi channel is serially-reused, and the faster (and more reliably) any given user's bits get on and off the air, the more time, and thus the more capacity, is left for everyone else. 802.11ac should be a big plus here. But it's not all upside. In order to get that 1.3 Gbps, an 80-MHz. radio channel is required. While .11ac only works in the 5-GHz. bands, there should be plenty of spectrum available. But the total number of channels available will obviously decline, as IT shops reserve at least some spectrum for 20-MHz and 40-MHz. legacy 802.11n channels. Careful channel planning will be required. And--a key point in this analysis--802.11n will be with us for some time, in terms of both infrastructure and client installed base. Thus the backwards-compatible performance of 802.11ac will be critical. Most shops will want to adopt a staged deployment of .11ac, which should be easy if those new APs support .11n simultaneously, including the 2.4 GHz. band for legacy .11n and even .11g clients. Simultaneous .11ac and .11n in the same channel won't be optimal, just as trying to operate .11g and .11n in the same channel simultaneously degrades the performance of both. But, again, setting aside at least one 80-MHz. channel for power users should clear the air here, so to speak. And this brings up another very important point--I'm not advising anyone to defer a current .11n requirement and wait for .11ac. 802.11n will remain the wireless technology in the majority of client devices shipping until at least 2015, and I'm not expecting 802.11ac to replace 802.11n entirely until at least 2018. So, if you can get return on investment from a new or augmented 802.11n facility today, it's best to do so. Networks are all about optimizing the productivity of their users, and it would be a mistake to live with degraded performance when very cost-effective systems based on proven technologies and products are available now. The only other activities that should be on your to-do list here for now are to speak with your WLAN system vendor about their 802.11ac plans (and it's worth signing a non-disclosure agreement to do so; this is strategic, after all), and to do an audit of your wired infrastructure to look for weak links in the internal switching and cabling required to support all that new wireless capacity. Don't worry, 1.3 Gbps over the air won't translate to 1.3 Gbps on wire. But 10+ Gbps Ethernet switches are eventually going to be not only required but the most cost-effective option as well, so it's not too early to plan that next wire upgrade. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, Mass. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2012-07-30T08:36:00ZGoogle Glasses: Does This Make Sense?Yes, I want Google Glass glasses. But here's why you probably won't.http://www.informationweek.com/news/240004329?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentLast month I looked at <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/240001749">putting a phone into a tablet</a>, a concept with (IMHO) limited appeal but not likely to fail altogether. This month, though, I've got one that really is going to flop--even though it's cool, exciting, and even revolutionary. I'm talking about putting a phone into eyeglasses or a similar head-mounted form factor, with <a href="https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/about">Google's Project Glass</a> being the current poster child for this approach. Whereas we'll see Phablets in some limited vertical and consumer applications, don't count on too many people sporting cellular headsets--think of this instead as the <a href="http://www.segway.com/">Segway scooter</a> of the wireless world--intriguing, and, yes, cool, but ultimately very, very rare. Not to put too fine a point on it, but how come we're not seeing Segways everywhere? This concept lit up the airwaves (to use an analogy) when it was announced back in 2001, and everyone--everyone--wanted one, or at least wanted to try one. Imagine a personal transportation device that's compact, environmentally friendly, and devastatingly cool. That's a Segway. So why is it, once again, that we're not all riding around on one today? (Just to be clear, I still want one badly, but, then, I'm a confirmed gadget addict who occasionally, or maybe a little more often than that, abandons the practical just for fun and adventure.) The answer is simple--the Segway isn't at all, um, practical, in any broad-based sense of the word; think congested urban streets and sidewalks, and limited cargo capability. Think about tooling around on one of these when the weather's not all that great (I live in New England). OK, bicycles suffer from a similar handicap, but we see plenty of those everywhere. But, then, bicycles are much more cost-effective--a serviceable model can be had for less than $1,000. But a Segway--well, if you have to ask, you can't afford one. These are still priced like decent used cars. So, to get back to the topic at hand today, cost is the number one issue here: Google Glass will cost developers around $1,500; the price for consumers is still unknown. But it gets worse, and let's start with that matter of practicality. A tiny touchpad for data entry and control--no keyboard. No cellular connectivity (yet). And, of course, if you already wear glasses, well, something to be done about that as well. Don't even think about wearing these while driving. While much has been made of limitations in screen and camera resolution and onboard storage, to be fair what we have today is a prototype, so let's cut Google (and everyone else who might jump in here--this means you, Apple) some slack at present--except regarding that part about practicality. The concept of wearable or head-mounted computing, BTW, isn't new--before I started Farpoint Group, more than two decades ago, I worked in supercomputing and on a number of virtual-reality applications--you know, with expensive and uncomfortable head-mounted displays that were the best we could do at the time to provide an immersive experience for a single individual. Over the years display technology has become more compact, and we can even provision something akin to a HDTV experience for those seeking a personal video-viewing environment (the Google Glass display is in fact 720p, not bad at all). But there's a big difference between watching a video and managing information. This is without question great marketing on Google's part, but let's not get carried away. And there's another big issue here: In a world growing ever more leery of eccentric behavior (yes, let's go with that for the moment), it's possible that such sophisticated technology as Google Glass may even be seen as a threat. Recently, in a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/mcdonalds-digital-specs-prompt-privacy-fears-143001375.html">report from the Associated Press</a>, a computer science professor wearing a device not too dissimilar from Google's was assaulted by the employees of a McDonald's in Paris for fear he was violating their privacy. Extreme? Sure--today. But there's regardless a cautionary note here: Technological change that disrupts societal norms may not receive a warm welcome. For now, though, the limited capabilities--the impracticality--of Google Glass trump all other considerations. This is a toy for gadget freaks, and will remain such for a very long time. And, yes, just in case you were wondering--I want one of these, too. InformationWeek is conducting a survey to determine how IT is perceived in the enterprise. Take our <a href="http://informationweek.2012ITperception.sgizmo.com/s3/">InformationWeek 2012 IT Perception Survey</a> now. Survey ends Aug. 3. 2012-06-08T09:56:00ZShould Your Next Smartphone Be A Phablet?Phablets may very well find a niche in vertical and specialized markets, but there's a convenience problem for mainstream business and enterprise users.http://www.informationweek.com/news/240001749?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_government <div class="inlineStoryImage inlineStoryImageRight"><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/galleries/mobility/smart_phones/240001334"><img src="http://twimgs.com/informationweek/galleries/automated/802/01_iPhone_Rumors_Intro_tn.jpg" alt="iPhone 5 Predictions: The Best And Worst" title="iPhone 5 Predictions: The Best And Worst" class="img175" /></a> <div class="storyImageTitle">iPhone 5 Predictions: The Best And Worst</div> (click image for larger view and for slideshow)</div>  Have you heard that term yet--phablet? Well, a phablet is what you get when you put cell phone functionality into a small tablet. And we're not talking just data here--rather, imagine a big smartphone that you can hold up to your head. Sounds crazy, right? And yet we are starting to see these in the market today, begging a typical question asked of the analyst community: Does the phablet make sense? It just might--in some cases. A mobile device (more precisely, BTW, a subscriber unit) is the most visible element in the wireless and mobile information value chain, with said device today commonly a notebook PC, tablet, or handset. When we examine the differences between these three classes of device, we discover more in common than not. There's the usual processor/memory/storage components, an operating system of some form, and, most critically for our purposes here, a display and some input metaphor, normally either a physical or software keyboard along with some mechanism for pointing, selecting, gesturing, and etc. Apart from the differing GUI strategies and implementations, and who's got the most apps, of course, the biggest variables are the physical size and resolution of the display, and that keyboard/pointing mechanism. With respect to the display, in general we'd like it to be as high in resolution as possible so as to both present more information simultaneously and provide better overall image quality. But the pixels can't get any smaller than are defined by the limits of screen manufacturing processes, and, equally importantly, the limits of the resolution of the human eye. Apple calls their screens "retina displays" for reasons of more than clever marketing alone. And the natural aging of the eye demands, as anyone over the age of 40 knows, either a larger display or decent eyeglasses--or, perhaps more often than not, both. So the larger screen of a phablet just might make sense with obvious appeal across multiple dimensions, so to speak. [ Smartphones, tablets, phablets. What's next? Read <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/240001566?itc=edit_in_body_cross">Google's Mystery Communications Device: 6 Facts</a>. ] And then there's the keyboard. The two-thumb typing technique can work well on both real and virtual keyboards--but it's hardly preferable. So a somewhat larger keyboard might make sense here as well--if you use an iPad, do you prefer that on-screen keyboard versus, say, the one on an iPhone. And this leads us to the ultimate question--bigger screens and bigger keyboards mean the device itself must be physically larger as well. But how large can the device get? We see in some phablets today displays reaching more than five inches (e.g., the Samsung Galaxy Note) versus the four-inches-or-less typical in handsets, and thus stretching the limits of ... trouser pockets. And therein lies the key determining factor as to ultimate the success of the phablet. A device bigger than a pants pocket immediately puts the male market at risk. Women, of course, almost always carry handbags, and there's likely already a handset in each of those, with some room to spare. Moving up to the phablet form factor isn't too much of a leap in that case, but we doubt many men will wear a large device on their belts or start carry bags just to tote their phone--I mean, phablet. Convenience: compromised. And then, of course, there's the issue of actually holding such a large device up to one's head. This isn't a big deal if one uses a Bluetooth (or other) headset, and I think such headsets may make a return regardless as the simultaneous voice and data possible on LTE enables greater device utility via positioning the device so its screen can be seen even while talking. So the nerd factor is likely to be quite limited in the case of the phablet--and that convenience factor thus determines market success. The bottom line? While it's unlikely to challenge seriously any of the three primary form factors noted above, the <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/240001040">phablet may very well find its niche</a> in vertical and specialized markets--industrial, commercial, students--and with some casual end-users for whom e-readers with similar dimensions are already more than acceptable. For mainstream business and enterprise users, though, I wouldn't count on seeing very many phablets for some time to come. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. Cloud Connect is expanding to the Windy City. Join 1,200+ IT professionals at <a href="http://www.cloudconnectevent.com/chicago/?_mc=UFPQCH06">Cloud Connect Chicago</a>, where you will learn how to leverage new cloud technology solutions to increase productivity and improve your business agility. Join us in Chicago, Sept. 10-13. Register today!2012-05-08T09:05:00ZWhy Security Isn't A BYOD ShowstopperIT should view the bring-your-own-device phenomenon as less of a threat and more as an opportunity. Here's why.http://www.informationweek.com/news/232901581?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_government <div class="inlineStoryImage inlineStoryImageRight"> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/galleries/mobility/smart_phones/232601764"><img src="http://twimgs.com/informationweek/galleries/automated/749/01-cover_tn.jpg" alt="9 Hottest Phones At Mobile World Congress" title="9 Hottest Phones At Mobile World Congress" class="img175" /></a> <div class="storyImageTitle">9 Hottest Phones At Mobile World Congress</div> (click image for larger view and for slideshow)</div> In a webinar on BYOD that I just did, a survey of the 500-plus participants showed that security is the way-out-in-front, lead concern of IT managers when it comes to implementing a bring-your-own-device program. More than 60% of those people voting reiterated what I hear every day. "Is it safe? Can we really trust users and their personal handsets with enterprise secrets?" Security is, of course, the one part of IT where one can never be "done". Each week brings new concerns, new threats, and some previously unknown and unforeseeable challenge. Perhaps it's news of yet another IT breach, or, even worse, a discovery, not yet public, that something has gone terribly wrong and confidential information might be compromised. With security constantly under fire, then, aren't we just making things worse by allowing essentially any device on the corporate network? Aren't we just waving the proverbial red flag in front of the hacker community, daring them to do their worst once again? Let me begin to answer that by saying that BYOD is, no matter what, going to become the norm in enterprise mobility during the next few years. Users want to carry only one handset, and it's their phone. The enterprise can save big bucks by eliminating the capital expense of unwanted (by users, anyway) handsets and sharing the operating expense of cellular service plans. Properly managed, then, BYOD looks like a win/win. [ Read <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/mobile/232800422?itc=edit_in_body_cross">BYOD: How To Calculate Hidden Security Costs</a>. ] And proper management is the key. A number of vendors have announced BYOD solutions in recent days. Although each of these products addresses <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/mobile/232601191">security</a>, they are really at their cores about <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/mobile/232700489">policy</a>, and the enforcement thereof. So, then, is your security policy in place and up-to-date? How about your acceptable-use policy? Your agreements with your employees and contractors regarding the above and service-cost reimbursements? Have you updated your training? Training includes, by the way, basic consciousness-raising, along the lines of "loose lips sink ships". As is always the case in IT, the place to start is with strategies and objectives; many questions need to be asked before any IT service goes live, let alone with BYOD. What information should be secured? Who should have access to it, and under what circumstances? What must be done in the event of a breach? How is confidential information tracked? What are the policies regarding authentication, file encryption, remote access, and VPNs? All BYOD does is introduce a potential new vector; it doesn't redefine or even change the security problem very much. Got live USB ports on your PCs? Know how much a modern microSD card can hold? Still think BYOD is that big of a security threat? We can learn a lot from the techniques employed in government-class security, which are based on the concepts of security clearance level (secret, top secret, etc.) and, more importantly, need to know. The former can be addressed through a careful and at least annual review of security policy and procedures, along with the tools applied. Need to know is addressed by carefully defining and controlling who belongs to what group of users, and what privileges are granted to any given group. See? BYOD doesn't really introduce much new here. Indeed, a good BYOD solution is one coupled with <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/security/232200165">mobile device management (MDM)</a> and mobile application management (MAM) capabilities to make sure that mobile devices allowed on the corporate network are operationally secured and appropriately monitored, and that features such as device wipe are available when necessary (and, of course, that users are aware they might be applied). I see BYOD evolving from Guest Access 2.0 to, ultimately, the enterprise network access control system of the future. The core functions in BYOD, which can include, depending upon enterprise philosophy and vendor implementation, all aspects of both security and integrity management, are common to both wired networks and enterprise-owned devices as well. So perhaps we should view BYOD as less of a novelty or a threat, and more as an opportunity to improve security, cut costs, and, in the bargain, improve both user and operations-staff satisfaction across the board. At this interactive <a href="https://www.techwebonlineevents.com/ars/eventregistration.do?mode=eventreg&F=1004316&K=7TW">Enterprise Mobility Virtual Event</a>, experts and solution providers will offer detailed insight into how to bring some order to the mobile industry innovation chaos. When you register, you will gain access to live webcast presentations and virtual booths packed with free resources. It happens May 17. 2012-03-14T11:50:00ZThe High Cost Of CoolNew bells and whistles on your favorite technology are exciting, but sometimes they're just noise.http://www.informationweek.com/news/232602592?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentThe pace of evolution in modern computing, which can trace its roots back to the 1940s, has slowed in most dimensions in recent years. Sure, we've got solid-state drives, multi-core processors, DDR3 DRAM, gigabit Ethernet, and more, but the fundamental nature of the computer hasn't changed much at all in decades--and that's a good thing. In the 1970s we debated all manner of computer, network, and multiprocessor architectures; everything was possible then. But we've now converged to a core set of IT intrinsics, and the computer itself is no longer the hallmark of innovation it once was. And that's good because IT buying is now mostly risk-free. Except in one key dimension: user interface. We've gone from punch cards to teletypes to smart terminals to WIMP (windows/icons/mouse/pull-down menus) to--with tablets, handsets, and some notebooks--gestures and voice. In some cases the transition from one UI model to the next has been easy, but rapid evolution, especially in the last few years, is becoming increasingly difficult for many to swallow--and, quite frankly, most of this change is totally unnecessary. Why? Because much (if not most) of the training and support costs that IT departments must bear on a continuing basis are with the goal of simply helping the user to be effective and productive with a given device. Making routine tasks easy and sure. Enabling secure, transparent, and accurate data management. [ Is Microsoft's upcoming operating system refresh more cool than practical? See <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/232601433?itc=edit_in_body_cross">8 More Ways Windows 8 Could Be Great</a>. ] All too often, however, these important goals are secondary to those of a cool new user interface. And the goal of that cool new interface, then? Product differentiation--providing an incentive to buy a cool new product, and, all too often, cool for cool's sake. Think iPad and you'll see what I mean. Sure, the iPad, as we saw with Apple's recent announcement of a product so cool <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/232602197">it needs only one name</a> (more confusion afoot there, I think), improves in the hardware domain with each new edition, but it's still a big iPod Touch and often inconvenient for even simple enterprise data-manipulation activities. I never thought iTunes would be a business necessity, and I still don't think it should be. I can't tell you how many IT shops I've visited that are still using that clunky, slow, and soon-to-be-unsupported Windows XP. Why? Well, apart from all that clunkiness and slowness, it works. But most importantly, XP retains market share because of latent pushback from the Windows Vista fiasco and fundamental user familiarity--and thus productivity. Why change the user interface of a given operating system or device just to do the same tasks as before, only differently? The only real benefit here accrues to the suppliers of that coolness, who are, after all, in it for the money and need to continue to sell new stuff, needed or not, to keep the cash tumbling in. IT organizations get stuck with new training and support costs that they really can't afford, and overall productivity is impacted as users learn new ways to either do what they did before, <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/232602573">or screw up in the process</a>. It's bad enough that underlying implementation details and features of new operating systems change, forcing IT to re-evaluate, with each new release, such subtleties as reliability, integrity, application compatibility, and security, but forcing users to change for change's sake is simply going too far. Please note that I'm not arguing against progress. I know there are still users of WordStar on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M">CP/M</a> out there, and that's by no means what I'm advocating. If there are real, demonstrable benefits to new user interfaces, and the cost of these can be successful amortized, then, well, great--let's have them. But my personal appeal is for a little less "progress" here. I switched to a Mac around the time of the aforementioned Vista fiasco, and, while Apple has issued numerous updates to OS X over the five or so intervening years, the essential integrity of the user experience remains intact. Do I like the Mac UI? No, not particularly--but it gets the job done, and I'm satisfied that security, integrity, and other requirements are being properly addressed in our IT operations. And that, and not coolness, must be the bottom line for any enterprise. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. Predictive IT analytics can provide invaluable insight--vital if a private cloud is in your future. Find out how in the new, all-digital <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/gogreen/030512/?k=axxe&cid=article_axxe_os">Predictive IT Analytics</a> issue of InformationWeek. Also in this issue: Randy Mott named CIO of General Motors, how Dell is pushing into the enterprise data center, and eight key features in Windows 8. (Free registration required.)2011-05-24T08:00:00ZLTE In Your PocketMajor U.S. wireless carriers are all committed to the Long Term Evolution standard, and it's time for enterprises to develop a migration plan.http://www.informationweek.com/news/229625326?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentOK, I'm stealing some airline's tagline there, but, really, we've arrived at a singularity in the history of wireless: LTE is about to become the only wide-area wireless technology that matters. It will take the planet by storm, and it will absolutely be in your pocket over the next few years. The major carriers are behind this technology and it's time for enterprises everywhere to have a migration to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution">LTE</a> in their plans. Or is it? Maybe we've been asking the enterprise to get a little too deep into wireless technology, especially that provisioned by carriers. Shouldn't we at the far end of the value chain be more concerned with upper-layer protocols and applications? And, since those protocols are IP and those apps dependent upon no wireless technology in particular (as long as it's broadband, of course), should we even care what wide-area technology we're using? Well, yes we should. Commonality in technologies means that device vendors, from chips to subscriber units, can invest in higher-volume manufacturing, with correspondingly lower costs that ultimately benefit us users to a very great degree. But ditto with services--a competitive market means greater service availability and capacity, lower prices, improved reliability, and innovation and differentiation in vendor-specific value-added elements. All of this stimulates basic demand, so it's ultimately win/win/win for device and equipment vendors, carriers, and users. And the use of different radio bands for LTE in different parts of the world, an artifact of diversity in global regulatory policy? No big deal today; world LTE adapters are fairly easy to build. And, oh yes, I almost forgot, we're moving, as attendees at the recent Interop conference learned, and quite rapidly, to an era of personal liability, also known as <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/229402912">Bring Your Own Device</a> (BYOD). Just like workers in the trades, we'll bring our own tools to work and have our personal choice of consumer-based technology do double duty. And what will all those devices support? LTE. No need for a massive upgrade of enterprise handsets, with all of the attendant costs and trauma. There's more. All of the major carriers in the U.S. are committed to LTE, likely even including Sprint, which has signaled its intentions to pursue LTE despite an investment in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX">WiMax</a> carrier Clearwire. But even if Sprint remained Clearwire-only, I see <a href="http://www.clearwire.com/">Clearwire</a> migrating to LTE all by itself. And Clearwire won't be the only broadband-data carrier pursuing LTE; check out Lightsquared's effort to build a wholesale LTE network in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_band">the L band</a>. Bottom line: we'll be drowning in LTE in just a few years--and, again, that's very, very good for the enterprise. OK, there is some downside to LTE, as is always the case with any new technology. Current pricing is high, and it would be easy to exceed, and quite quickly, the fixed allocations of capacity currently offered at those high prices by the carriers; check out Verizon's pricing for an example. As has always been the case, carriers won't guarantee coverage or throughput; LTE is better radio, but still radio, after all. LTE, contrary to what some believe and also to some current vendor marketing, won't really be about throughput, anyway, but rather capacity, with more efficient use of the spectrum again a benefit for all of us. Regardless, I'd still argue that it's in the best interests of the carriers to get customers up and running on LTE as soon as possible so as to gain ROI quickly, and that current pricing limiting demand (known in marketing parlance as "skimming") will be in place only until all elements of a carrier's value chain, most notably with respect to coverage and backhaul capacity, are in place. This won't take all that long. So, no more arguments over the fine points of wireless WAN technology, no more religious wars for the sake of religion. We are indeed at the singularity that many of us have been looking forward to, literally, for decades. Look what Wi-Fi did for WLANs, and take it everywhere. Excited? You should be. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, Mass. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.   <a name="recommended"></a> <center> <div id="recommendedReadingPromo"> <div class="recommendedReadingPromoHeader">Recommended Reading:</div> <ul class="normalUL"> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/229500628">No 4G In iPhone 4S</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal-tech/tablets/229402511">Motorola Ships 250,000 Xooms, Delays LTE Products</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/3G/229402105">Verizon LTE Garners 500,000 Customers</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/wifiwimax/229400894">Sprint Trashes LTE, WiMax Speed Tests</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/wifiwimax/229300936">Intel Buys LTE Vendor SySDSoft</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/wifiwimax/229300496">Will Sprint Dump WiMax For LTE?</a></li> <li class="last-li"><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/authors/showAuthor.jhtml?authorID=6105">See more by Craig Mathias</a></li> </ul> </div> </center>   Innovative IT shops are turning the mobile device management challenge into a business opportunity--and showing that we can help people be more connected and collaborative, regardless of location. Read the new report from InformationWeek Analytics. <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/tech-center/mobile-security/download?id=188500018&cat=whitepaper">Download it now</a>. (Free registration required.)2011-04-14T08:00:00ZMathias On Mobility: Cisco At A CrossroadsCisco's core problem is that it is too big, and it has a product line and service mix that is complex even for an analyst to understand.http://www.informationweek.com/news/229401544?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentI don't get it about these "mea culpa" memos from CEOs and other senior executives that seem to be all the rage these days. Ray Ozzie's "Dawn of a New Day" ("Doomsday" to some) missive at Microsoft. Stephen Elop's "Burning Platform" piece at Nokia. And now John Chambers' "We're Not Executing" posting, perhaps the best of this bunch. But, still, why air dirty laundry in public? Does this really help the cause? And how did Cisco get into this mess to begin with? There was a time when Cisco could do no wrong. For many, Cisco is networking, one of the seminal companies (along with Wellfleet Communications, which, of course, turned into, oh, never mind for now) that started it all and one that remains a key player in the future of home, enterprise, and carrier networks alike. The company continues to dominate both the enterprise and residential (via Linksys) wireless LAN markets, my particular areas of interest, and they continue to make steady progress with seemingly constant announcements of new wireless and related functionality. The products are good and the company is reliable, and yet the market value of the firm has fallen by more than 77% from its all-time peak in 2000. What's going on here? Chamber's <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/switches/229401019?queryText=cisco">memo says</a> that vision and fundamental strategy are just fine; the problem is in "operational execution". Unspecified (in the memo) changes are on the way. The company will stick to five stated priorities, none of which, interestingly, is explicitly wireless. The emphasis is instead on <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/switches/229400653">the core</a>, collaboration, <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/cloud-computing/infrastructure/229400593">virtualization/cloud</a<, architectures, and <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/collaboration/229300497">video</a>. I get the focus on the core, and on applications like collaboration and video as drivers of demand for network capacity. I think cloud is going to be a source of growth for networking for many years. But is such really the right product mix for a company like this? And can a single operational strategy unify all of these pieces? I don't think it can. Cisco's core problem is now simply that the firm is too big. They grew largely through acquisitions, many obtained at high prices, and now have a product line and service mix that is complex even for an analyst to understand. There's little doubt that Cisco's wireless products, again, both enterprise and <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/network/229300077">SMB</a>/residential/consumer, are up to the requirements of contemporary users and have a lot going for them. The synergies with the rest of the product line, however, well, that's a challenge right there. While there's a lot to be said for a single-vendor strategy on the part of buyers, and many customers do choose all-Cisco solutions for exactly that reason, our industry has expanded with interoperability driving both innovation and growth. The case can even be made for mixed-vendor solutions as optimal in many cases. Cisco is starting to look like a conglomerate with too many pieces that don't build or even depend upon one another. It's likely that their current cost structure simply can't sustain such an approach, and, um, streamlining from senior management on down is now in order. This direction is implied in the memo without, of course, any specifics. But many people, customers included, do not respond well to the threat of change, let alone change itself. Nimble competitors know this and the nipping has only just begun. The evolution of technology very often encourages the dismembering of previous leaders. Changes in technology drive changes in cost, these in turn force management to re-think even fundamental assumptions about how best to apply resources for optimal results. It's of course unreasonable for Cisco to behave like a startup; such is not possible regardless. Hey, at least they're not running ads, as was the case during the early part of the Carly Fiorina era at HP, with John C. standing in front of some garage professing that Cisco is going act like a nimble newcomer. Rather, it's time for focus, cutting loose the pieces that aren't synergistic, and freeing locked-up value for what's next. Wireless will undoubtedly play a key role in that, whatever it might be. And with such robust competition in the WLAN world, Cisco will require crisp execution indeed if a loss in market share is to be avoided.   <a name="recommended"></a> <center> <div id="recommendedReadingPromo"> <div class="recommendedReadingPromoHeader">Recommended Reading:</div> <ul class="normalUL"> <li><a href=" http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/switches/229401019">Practical Analysis: Cisco's Conundrum</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/social_networking_private_platforms/229401497/cisco-verizon-advance-unified-cloud-communications">Cisco, Verizon Advance Unified Cloud Communications</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/switches/229400653">Cisco Enhances Converged Networking In Switches, Servers</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/video_conferencing_telepresence/229400432/videoconferencing-telepresence-spending-to-double-by-2015">Videoconferencing, Telepresence Spending To Double By 2015</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/unified_communications/229301112">For True UC, Remember Smartphones</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/management/229400191">Tech Giants Push Smart Networking Standard</a></li> <li class="last-li"><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/authors/showAuthor.jhtml?authorID=6105">See more by Craig Mathias</a></li> </ul> </div> </center>   Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, Mass. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2011-02-17T08:00:00ZMathias On Mobility: Will Tablets Replace PCs?Tablets fit nicely into the brave new world of emerging cloud-based enterprise environments, shrinking IT budgets, and the general consumerization of information technology.http://www.informationweek.com/news/229218797?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentLast month's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas was abuzz about tablets, with on the order of 80 new models shown. While many of these products are, granted, very cool, and many will likely prove quite useful in the enterprise, I’m having a hard time understanding all the hoopla here Tablets as we know them today can trace their roots back to the mid-80s, with the introduction of GRiD Systems' GRiDPad -- clunky, to be sure by modern standards, but the die was indeed cast. Such industry heavyweights as Symbol Technologies (acquired by Motorola, and today a big tablet player) and Telxon (acquired, oddly enough, by Symbol) were building popular tablets for industrial applications back in the '90s. These products were expensive, at least in part due to the requirement for rugged construction, and they weren't exactly easy to use, more often equipped with custom code and used in vertical markets. But anyone who saw an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation will remember the little tablets that were used by officers for so many routine functions -- not a sheet of paper in sight, and, if I recall, no PCs, either. Which bring us to the question for today: Will tablets replace the PC as we know it? The answer: Yes, and to a great degree, but not entirely. I've been less than a fan of the PC for many years. I go back to DOS 1.0, and I've been amazed over the years how the PC became complex enough to challenge the operating expense budgets of more than a few companies. Complexity, after all, breeds cost. While the capital cost of the PC itself went down, especially considering the amazing improvements in hardware price/performance, the OS got more expensive, more difficult to use, and thus more expensive to deploy and support. Part of this has to do with the fundamental bone-headed nature of the very architecture of Windows, and Microsoft's various missteps (Windows ME and Vista come to mind here) that just heaped on cost with little (read: no) benefit. In disgust, I personally switched to the Mac. While the Mac costs more to acquire, its operating costs are far lower, resulting in a much lower total cost of ownership. This, as I've noted before, is the most important theme in IT today -- increasing bang for the buck. I'm convinced that cloud computing is the key to getting IT costs in line with overall corporate financial posture today, but going hand in hand with that is the relatively limited (read: less complex) software environments of tablets. We really don't need a full-blown OS on clients anymore; indeed, such just gets in the way with cost, complexity, and irritatingly long boot times. The key challenge, I believe, will be the availability of a broadly-accepted business-centric tablet. Let's face it -- the iPad is a relatively-closed big iPod accompanied by absolutely amazing marketing. Granted, one can configure it for enterprise use, but it wasn't designed for such, and most of those zillion apps are of little interest to corporations. That's why so many of the announcements at CES were significant -- everyone knows the tablet is going to find a home in the enterprise, and, in the process, take a big bite out of PC sales. But corporate tablets must be, first and foremost, configurable business tools, not music players. Don't get me wrong; Apple is slowly responding, but the enterprise tablet market is going to be the Wild West for a while regardless. And thus the PC will fade, slowly, over time, eventually being reduced to the thin-client/Windows-terminal/etc. model that first surfaced, again, many years ago. The key hardware advantages of the PC -- a keyboard and a larger display, and maybe in some cases I/O ports and local expandability -- will retain some of their appeal, and the software environment of Windows will survive a while longer to support all those legacy apps. But tablets do indeed fit quite nicely into the brave new world of emerging cloud-based enterprise IT environments, shrinking IT budgets (hey, no spending on clients required at all; just bring your own tablet to work), and the general consumerization of IT overall. They're here to stay. SEE ALSO: <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229000691">Mathias On Mobility: RIM's BlackBerry Far From Doomed</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/WAN_optimization/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228700005">Mathias On Mobility: 2011 The Same, But Better</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228200455">Mathias On Mobility: Why IT Should Buy More</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227600052">Mathias On Mobility: Why Mobile Apps Are Bad</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/WAN_optimization/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227300405">Mathias On Mobility: The Wireless LAN Architecture Question</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226200179">Mathias On Mobility: Solving The Indoor Wireless Problem</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225700742">Mathias On Mobility: Spectrum Shortage? Cognitive Radio Is The Answer</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/authors/showAuthor.jhtml?authorID=6105">See all stories by Craig Mathias</a> Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2011-01-14T08:00:00ZMathias On Mobility: RIM's BlackBerry Far From DoomedThe iPhone and Android handsets are cutting into Research In Motion's market share and the consumerzation of IT poses an even greater threat, but an enormous installed base buys time to adapt.http://www.informationweek.com/news/229000691?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentMany financial analysts have been offering commentary on Research In Motion (RIM) and its flagship product, the BlackBerry line of handsets and associated services. More than one has suggested that RIM is in deep trouble, even predicting that RIM could be the next zero-dollar stock, or the next Palm, which was recently acquired by HP. That's poppycock. Rubbish. Balderdash. RIM and the BlackBerry are going to do just fine, at least for the next few years, but it is clear that there many challenges. The most obvious challenge is the rise of the iPhone and Android-based devices. The latter has become so similar to the iPhone that analysts like me can lump them all into a single category: cool smartphones. These handsets have buzz. They have great marketing and mindshare. They define contemporary, especially with respect to user interface and applications. But keep in mind that the BlackBerry once held that very same role. Don't forget that "BlackBerry" was a verb before "Google." BlackBerry was established, and remains for many, the corporate standard for handsets. But RIM's key problem, has been their inability to stay cool. BlackBerry handsets look downright clunky -- both the hardware and software -- in comparison to today's coolness leaders. Attempts to generate modern appeal -- most notably the Storm and the <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227700241">Torch</a> -- have flopped. But BlackBerrys do indeed work, and the over-the-air encryption and other functionality of BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) continue to satisfy IT managers everywhere, at least for now. The looming threat to the BlackBerry, though, is the <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226800046">consumerization of handsets</a> and the crossover between enterprise and consumer products. Users want to carry only one device, and that's going to be a personal, not corporate, handset. Thus, a key trend is enterprises allowing employees to use their own handsets on corporate networks, a practice known as personal liability. Properly implemented, personal liability can IT lower costs, eliminate the need to carry more than one handset, and, with proper mobile device management, security and related issues are minimized. And one can get mobile device management systems and services from perhaps 50 different vendors today. RIM is attempting to address the coolness and software issues at least in part by migrating to the QNX OS, which runs on their <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229000175">PlayBook tablet</a>. While the idea of a business-focused tablet has appeal, a proprietary OS just adds cost without adding differentiation -- ask Palm whether WebOS, a fine piece of technology, really, helped them at all. Ditto, by the way, for Windows Phone 7. So why be optimistic about RIM's future? Because they have an enormous installed base, and migrating away from a key platform takes a very long time, especially for large corporate users. This gives RIM a good deal of room to get their technology and marketing acts together. Farpoint Group still projects RIM will hold the number three slot in <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/mobile/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229000356">handset platforms</a> a few years out, right behind Linux (likely Android, but that's by no means a given yet) and Apple's iOS. Apple remains the greatest marketing company on the planet. That can't be lost on RIM by now they; like most other handset vendors, they dismissed the sea change that was the original iPhone, but lessons have been learned since then. So don't count RIM out. The trends are clear, but the evolution will be slow, giving RIM the time it needs to <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228500231">stay in the top three</a>. SEE ALSO: <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228200455">Mathias On Mobility: Why IT Should Buy More</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227600052">Mathias On Mobility: Why Mobile Apps Are Bad</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/WAN_optimization/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227300405">Mathias On Mobility: The Wireless LAN Architecture Question</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226200179">Mathias On Mobility: Solving The Indoor Wireless Problem</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225700742">Mathias On Mobility: Spectrum Shortage? Cognitive Radio Is The Answer</a> Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2010-12-08T08:00:00ZMathias On Mobility: 2011 The Same, But BetterContinued deployment and growth of enterprise WLAN and 4G mean the end of wire to the desktop and a mobile future that is unequivocally broadband.http://www.informationweek.com/news/228700005?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentMany of us would like to wave goodbye to 2010 and not look back. IT staff are just plain weary -- they're tired of budget cuts, long hours and dealing with an ever-increasing array of both deployment and support issues as well as seemingly endless lists of requests for new features and enhancements. And then there are those budget cuts. We have, I believe, entered a period that will indeed be the new normal. We can deal with this situation via effective management and investments in capital equipment that make those on the operational side more efficient and productive. This strategy will see increasing emphasis in 2011 -- and that's in fact very good news indeed. But the news gets even better. Consider just a couple of trends that will see gather steam in 2011. The enterprise WLAN will continue to grow in scope, including both coverage and capacity. All wire -- except power cords! -- to the desktop is dead, as voice and even video on the WLAN become common. Automated solutions to potential interference challenges will similarly appear everywhere, and we'll even see a few 600 Mbps 802.11n products on the market. I'm also optimistic that we'll see the first few gigabit-level WLAN products as well. Having fun yet? What about 4G? The ITU's definition of 4G starts at 100 Mbps, and we're not likely to see any of those systems deployed for quite some time (around 2020, I think). But products based on the more marketing-centric definitions of 4G (which is simply faster than the 2 Mbps upper bound of 3G) will soar into many applications in 2011. HSPA+ from T-Mobile and LTE from Verizon (and soon AT&T) are already deployed in some locales, with much more to come. Many users will see throughput on a par with cable modems and DSL, pointing the way to a mobile future that really is, finally, unequivocally, broadband.And at the end of all those broadband connections will be an increasing array of ever-more-powerful, ever-more competitive subscriber units. Will tablets replace notebook PCs? For many users, they already have. I'm particularly impressed with quality of the browsing experience on modern enterprise-class handsets. Couple this with 4G, and web/cloud services and virtualization will assume key roles in mobile strategies in 2011. Device diversity will be addressed to a great degree by mobile device management solutions and personal-liability policies, and, while definitive solutions are still some ways out, big progress will be seen in the next year. You might be getting the idea that 2011 will be more about evolution than revolution. That is the case and it's a good thing -- the non-stop evolution of wireless and mobile technologies has given pause to more than a few CFOs, and even a few CIOs, over the years; these folks like stability and predictable ROI. But with a little stability and a clear path to cost-effective solutions now in place, it's time to buy. And IT professionals everywhere will find that the latest crop of products is much easier to integrate and use than has ever been the case in the past. Budgets will be constrained; this is, again, the new normal. But those budget dollars will buy solutions that will really make everyone happy. I've worked in mobility for more than 20 years now, and I've never been more excited than I am about the capabilities that are available today. SEE ALSO: <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228200455">Mathias On Mobility: Why IT Should Buy More</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227600052">Mathias On Mobility: Why Mobile Apps Are Bad</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/WAN_optimization/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227300405">Mathias On Mobility: The Wireless LAN Architecture Question</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226200179">Mathias On Mobility: Solving The Indoor Wireless Problem</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225700742">Mathias On Mobility: Spectrum Shortage? Cognitive Radio Is The Answer</a> Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2010-11-10T08:00:00ZMathias On Mobility: Why IT Should Buy MoreWhile IT managers must scrutinize productivity and TCO, "return on information" remains the last strong competitive differentiator.http://www.informationweek.com/news/228200455?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentOne topic absolutely defines 2010: cost. Or, more accurately, cutting costs to the greatest degree possible. A recurring theme for IT managers is that costs must be cut and then cut again, nominally by the familiar yet arbitrary 10%. All the while, it’s important to maintain the same level of services (including user support), expand mobility initiatives from supporting ever-more handsets (last year the iPhone, this year Android) to upgrading the WLAN (to 802.11n) and expanding the WLAN’s mission (increasingly including voice). CFOs seem to delight in this annual torture, but let’s be fair: Businesses should always, irrespective of global economic issues, run as lean as possible. Spending more than necessary is never a good idea; every expenditure must be weighed against its return on investment. While IT may be a cost center, the "I" in IT can be a profit center. Information (or access to it) is the last good competitive differentiator today. Knowledge of markets and technologies and manufacturing processes spread like wildfire, and competitive advantage is short-lived in most domains. The potential exception results from how a given company handles its information resources. Enabling secure anytime/anywhere access to information can improve customer service, market position and the bottom line. That is why expenditures on mobility continue at a high rate. In fact, IT is justifiably famous for the faster/better/cheaper model that improves price/performance dramatically and regularly. But there are two components to IT costs, and only capital expenses, which include planning, equipment and non-recurring engineering, yield better value every year. The drag is on the operating expense side: management, network operations, user services, troubleshooting, etc. These are labor-intensive and often involve highly skilled staff that only becomes more expensive over time. While we could never automate our way to eliminating the operating expense component, we can take steps to make the operating staff more productive and capable, literally doing more with fewer people required.Buying stuff that makes the operating side more efficient can convert operating expenses into capital expenses. In the past few years, especially in wireless, improved network management systems, spectral analysis and assurance capabilities (being rolled out by a good number of wireless-LAN vendors now), self-service portals for enabling access by new mobile devices and mobile device management and mobile policy management systems have enabled lower operating cost via improved productivity. We'll never eliminate the help desk, but we can, through increasing amounts of automation and proactive analysis, create an environment where the need for these services is minimized. Plus, as everyone spends more time working and less time wondering what went wrong and waiting for it to be fixed, user productivity grows. And it’s the productivity of users that justifies all the expense of IT to begin with. IT is indeed a cost center, but efficient and reliable operations minimize cost and maximize ROI -- return on information. Next year won’t bring any radical change in thinking, but profiting from advances in technology as embodied in new capital expenditures will be a key strategy going forward. That's true across IT, but in particular, the shift to mobile operations provides IT with just the opportunity it needs to prosper even as budget pressure mounts. Cutting costs may be the new normal, but with the right innovations, it’s not all that bad. In fact, it’s better than ever. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2010-10-04T09:00:00ZMathias On Mobility: Why Mobile Apps Are BadIT can deliver essential software to enterprise workers on the go without risking a fall into the mobile app trap.http://www.informationweek.com/news/227600052?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentApple is quite literally selling up a storm when it comes to the iPhone, and a big reason is all of those apps -- about two zillion of them, at last count. Their main competitors -- Google Android, RIM BlackBerry, Nokia Symbian and more, and Microsoft Windows Mobile/Phone all have app stores of their own, emphasizing that that the PC-era (and earlier) model of having lots of software available for one's hardware products is a great way to build competitive advantage. After all, we don't buy computers because we can't live without hardware or systems software, but rather because both of these enable us to run applications that help us get our jobs done and provide a wide variety of other life-enhancing benefits (with reasonable frequency, anyway). So, no surprise that apps are showing up big time on handsets, and that folks just love them. But, from an IT perspective, are they a good idea? Well, I'd argue, no, they're not. In fact, apps can become the obvious trap that's nailed both IT organizations and users in the past. Why, you ask? Because of the very nature of the apps themselves. Underlying vendor development tools are designed fundamentally to bind a given app to a particular operating system and, often, particular hardware as well. Apple leverages apps to sell iPhones – and makes a pretty penny as the sole distribution channel for these apps as well. Don't get me started on that now, but apps are a big win for Apple in more ways than one. And that's what makes apps bad for IT -- apps are a lock-in. Once we adopt an app, whether proprietary or purchased, we're stuck with a particular handset and perhaps even a particular wireless carrier. Flexibility in both the platform and services domains is vital if we're to hold down costs, a core, essential objective in every IT shop today. Sure, some apps like games really do require local execution, but most IT managers don't cater to the entertainment needs of their user base. Rather, it's all about data (and apps!) in the cloud. Perhaps even more important, the vast majority of enterprise-class apps today are really front-ends to web and cloud services regardless. OK, it can be argued that a local app is at least desirable here, as information display and user interaction needs to be modified to address the constraints of the mobile device, But there's a better way -- almost. And that's to design all mobile apps to work within a browser. One would simply go to mobile.whatever.com (or perhaps use the .mobi domain for non-proprietary apps), authenticate, and then, well, that's it. Except for the almost part, and that is the fundamental lack of browser standards in most (Oh, what am I saying? All!) mobile devices today. I've argued for some time that the protocol-layer interfaces to browsers must be treated in precisely the same way as the whole IP domain, i.e., via a formal standards process, and rigid shunning of proprietary extensions put in place for (here we go again) assumed competitive advantage. To be fair, some of these extensions do indeed have value, but silly arguments between vendors, like the Apple/Adobe tiff over Flash, only serve to irritate customers and limit end-user productivity. It's 2010 -- why are we still putting up with such asinine behavior on the part of our suppliers? I'd encourage all enterprise IT departments to think in terms of those hallmarks of what made this industry great -- choice, flexibility, open systems, and productivity. I think any IT manager pursuing these goals will quickly move to make their operation as platform-independent as possible. And I'm sure you'll join me in urging suppliers to adopt standards at the browser level. And, OK, fine, let's keep apps -- but just for fun. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2010-09-08T15:35:00ZMathias On Mobility: The Wireless LAN Architecture QuestionShould the control plane be centralized or distributed, and should data from the Access Point flow through the controller? http://www.informationweek.com/news/227300405?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentI recently participated in a couple of Webinars that at least partially addressed the continuing issues surrounding the system architecture of enterprise-class wireless LAN systems. Those of you who have been involved with WLANs for a while may remember about a decade ago when Symbol Technologies (later acquired by Motorola) introduced the WLAN switch, which subsequently evolved into the WLAN controller today at the heart of so many product lines. The idea was simple and brilliant--move key, common functional elements out of the access point (AP) and into the centralized switch or controller. APs get thin, cheap, and simple, and all of the difficult stuff gets done in a central element, akin to an Ethernet switch or even a router, that can be duplicated for improved reliability. It all seems so contemporary, logical, and correct. Indeed, most WLAN suppliers today offer controllers of one form or another. But there is, in fact, a difference between the controller as box and the controller as function; the latter being what we call the control plane when describing the location of specific functions within a particular architecture. There are two more planes, the management plane, which really must be centralized, handles planning, configuration, policy definition, monitoring, reporting, and much more, and the data plane, which describes how data moves within an implementation. The big question with respect to the latter is whether user traffic must flow through the controller or not. In other words, whether the AP is thin or fat. Traditional, or fat, APs require no separate controller. The control plane--which I like to describe as the operating system of a WLAN--is distributed among all APs in a given installation. Data in this case can be directly forwarded as required, which seems more efficient. However, as Keerti Melkote, the CTO of WLAN leader Aruba Networks, once stated in a conference session I attended, after you've spent milliseconds sending data over the air, what's a few more microseconds to send it to a powerful controller where security, traffic prioritization, and QoS (and often more, depending upon product) can be more efficiently managed? Well, the competition counters, not having to forward data means that the controller (logical or physical) can be much simpler in design and implementation, loading on the network links to the controller is reduced, the controller box itself is minimized or perhaps even eliminated, and the need for controller upgrades as network traffic volumes grow also perhaps eliminated altogether as well. Gee, that sounds pretty good, too. So the WLAN architecture question comes down to two key decisions. Should the control plane be centralized or distributed, and should data from the AP flow through the controller? With respect to the latter, an increasing number of vendors have adopted what we call a direct forwarding architecture, in which data flows directly from a given AP to its destination and not through the controller. Some APs are "adaptive," exhibiting both modes of operation depending upon policy settings and traffic type. With respect to the former, some vendors have a fully-distributed control plane and no controller box at all. At least one vendor has virtualized the controller entirely, reducing it to software running in a virtual machine. Diversity? You bet, and there's no end in sight. The reason for that is simple. It's very likely that no single architecture will yield the best result (including in terms of price/performance) for all possible network load scenarios. WLAN performance evaluation is notoriously difficult, given varying radio conditions that defy efforts toward reproducibility, and no one has been able to run the definitive comparative tests, at least not yet. Of course, the continuing rapid evolution of underlying technology, standards, chipsets, and system implementations reduce even detailed comparisons in most cases to an analysis of performance at only a single moment in time, with no long-term insights in the results. The WLAN architecture question is unlikely to be settled soon, despite the fact that the performance of so many applications depends upon a detailed understanding of the tradeoffs inherent in this discussion. I continue to study advances in benchmarking and other comparative techniques that may eventually yield insight and perhaps even a trend one way or the other. Still, it remains unlikely that we'll end up with a simple, easy answer here, or that we'll be able to reduce the selection of the right product for the job to a simple analytical methodology or picking the answer off a chart. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. 2010-07-26T09:25:00ZMathias On Mobility: Solving The Indoor Wireless ProblemMobile convergence means we have to fix the trouble with in-building wireless. Fortunately there's a solution that will ultimately win out.http://www.informationweek.com/news/226200179?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentI've had a lot of interesting conversations in recent months on the debate over in-building wireless coverage. There are many alternatives, but everyone wants to know: Is there a single best approach to the question of bringing cellular voice and data to users indoors? From a radio-coverage perspective, indoors is tough -- much tougher than outdoors when it comes to provisioning reliable wireless service. Radio propagation is always a bit problematic, but when walls, floors, and ceilings are added to the mix, to say nothing of metal objects that bounce signals, and the people and objects that absorb them, you've got issues. But as we're all wedded to our mobile handsets and other wide-area mobile computing and communications devices, this is a challenge that must be addressed. Unfortunately, as is often the case with problems that involve not just technology, but also economics, politics, and more, there are a lot of variables. Regardless, I think we will arrive at a single preferred, if not "right" approach -- but it's going to take a while. All of this is critical because I believe we are converging to a fundamentally mobile arsenal when it comes to communications and networking. Why have a desk phone, with its associated costs and infrastructure, if you already have a cell phone? And, of course, that handset is also a key interface for data networking in all forms. So, the problem is simple, at least in one sense: bring cellular signals indoors, and make the signals generated by the handset get out. The classic solution is a microcell, which is a cellular base station designed for indoor deployment and owned and operated by a cellular carrier. These are often found in large venues -- sporting arenas, conference centers, and the like. But private office buildings usually turn to a different solution, called a distributed antenna system (DAS). These can take many forms, but it's useful to think of them as repeaters. These can be pricey, depending upon how much wiring is required, and are often single-carrier solutions. But a true neutral-host implementation can serve essentially everyone with transparency and usually good results. Except that a DAS doesn't add any additional capacity -- it just takes that which exists nearby and spreads it around more appropriately. This motivates the use of femtocells as an alternative. Think of these analogous to Wi-Fi access points, but serving a particular cellular carrier. Femtocells make a lot of sense in residential applications, but the jury is out on enterprise deployments. Again, does a single-carrier solution really make sense here? We have a lot to learn about both the technology and economics of the femtocell approach. Which brings me to what I think will eventually be the right strategy: Wi-Fi. Essentially all enterprises (and beyond) will ultimately have ubiquitous Wi-Fi coverage, so why not hand off the cellular connection to Wi-Fi, and vice-versa, as necessary? Sure, not all handsets have Wi-Fi today, and not all Wi-Fi infrastructures are configured to handle voice traffic. And the carriers seem less than interested in terminating their connections over someone else's network, necessitating private solutions today -- often called fixed/mobile or mobile/mobile convergence. All of these concerns will be addressed over time, as Wi-Fi is in fact essential to the success of the carriers, who otherwise won't have enough spectrum to handle increasing demands for bandwidth, indoors or out. An existing Wi-Fi infrastructure is by far the least costly and most convenient solution to bringing the wireless wide area network indoors. We're already partially there, in fact: have a look at the <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/peripherals/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225701841">recent announcement</a> from DAS leader MobileAccess and Cisco, and the innovative products from SpiderCloud, both of which use enterprise LAN connections to distribute cellular signals. Can the wireless LAN be far behind? Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2010-06-21T10:02:00ZMathias On Mobility: Spectrum Shortage? Cognitive Radio Is The AnswerImagine a phone which can work on both CDMA and GSM networks -- or receives TV broadcasts -- and does so by loading new software.http://www.informationweek.com/news/225700742?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentI keep hearing about how we're running out of radio spectrum, the highway upon which wireless devices operate. Given the astronomically high prices paid in spectrum auctions, such must really be the case. For all you techies out there, here's a simple experiment that reveals the truth: Get yourself a spectrum analyzer, a device that shows how much energy is in select portions (bands) of the air at any given time in any given location. Pick any band you want, and let the analyzer run over a period of time. Compute the average amount of energy over the sampled period of time. What do you find? That the airwaves are mostly empty most of the time. We don't, then, have a spectrum shortage. Rather, we're just not making very good use of this precious natural resource. Why is that? Well, the answer is rooted in the history of wireless. In the early days, radio was commonly used for broadcasting, and, after quite a while, for mobile communications of the push-to-talk variety. Thus it appeared that we had tons of spectrum, and the government allocated spectrum in a land-rush kind of fashion -- big chunks went to those who could make a case for having these. Today, the situation looks quite different. We have more demand for applications than we do spectrum, and it now behooves us to think more intelligently about how that spectrum is allocated and used. It makes little sense to allocate spectrum to applications that leave that spectrum fallow much of the time. Sharing is the name of the game, just as it is on the highway. But there’s another problem. Historically, specific radios were of necessity designed only for particular frequencies and particular applications. Modern technology removes these limitations. One of the key steps in this direction was the development of software-defined radio, or SDR, in which many physical-layer functions are configurable in software. Imagine a phone that can work on both CDMA and GSM networks (or receives TV broadcasts) and does so by loading new software. As it turns out, this kind of flexibility is unlikely to be as important as we originally thought five or ten years ago. We seem to be converging on LTE and Wi-Fi, plus some legacy Bluetooth, limiting the utility of SDR in handsets. Of course, essentially all radios today have a significant software component, but SDR-class flexibility isn't really a requirement. Except in one dimension -- namely, the frequency upon which the radio operates. Being able to support a broad range here, say from a few hundred megahertz (TV channels) to a few gigahertz, would be ideal. Also, wouldn’t it be nice if that radio could automatically (algorithmically) select the right frequency for any given moment in time, thus intelligently sharing the airwaves? If we thus throw a little intelligence at the problem, we can in fact make better use of that otherwise scare resource, radio spectrum. The first big application for these cognitive radios is in the so-called TV White Spaces, unused television broadcast channels recently made available by the FCC. A variety of mechanisms, including spectrum sensing and the use of a database of occupied spectrum, are required to make the cognitive radios truly smart. While controversy continues to swirl about the White Spaces effort, as is always the case when spectrum is re-assigned, this spectrum is going to become available and thus will serve as the proving ground for cognitive radio technologies. My hope is that we won't stop there. Cognitive radio technologies are the key to handling the enormous increase in traffic and demand which will unquestionably materialize as communities of users -- personal, corporate, and government -- all around the world continue to rely on wireless communications as, quite literally, a key to prosperity. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. 2010-05-26T15:33:00ZMathias On Mobility: Paving The Real Information SuperhighwayThe FCC's mobile-broadband auction process is little more than the path to yet more hidden taxation.http://www.informationweek.com/news/225200311?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentWe all focus on the cool technologies and products which make contemporary wireless so exciting. Handsets are nothing less than powerful, albeit tiny, PCs. Broadband wireless offers megabits of throughput, with a lot more on the near-term horizon. But none of this is possible without a highway upon which drive all those handsets. This is the domain of spectrum policy and regulation, and herein lays the greatest challenge to the future success of wireless overall. Things are not going well, and history is to blame. OK, let's blame technology a little, too. Radios which stayed on-frequency weren't easy to build way back when, and almost all were specialized for particular applications. It thus made sense to have a spectrum-regulation policy which considered making orderly use of the airwaves by reserving particular frequency bands for particular applications. Historically, the biggest chunk of spectrum space went to whatever was popular at the time. This is why government has so much, and why the broadcasters also have vast amounts of prime spectral real estate. But times change. Back in the mid-1990s, it became clear that more bandwidth would be required for mobile (and eventually broadband) applications. At the same time, governments around the world, strapped for cash, began to realize that an auction process could bring vast amounts of money to the general coffers. Thus spectrum regulation took on a new goa: not just the orderly use of a precious natural resource, but also vacuuming vast amounts of cash out of the customers forced to pay billions in licensing fees. You may have heard about the FCC's plans for a national broadband policy, which includes allocating (actually, re-allocating) 300-500 MHz of spectrum to new mobile broadband services. This makes sense, except that that spectrum will likely come out the pool currently occupied by the TV broadcast industry, and they are none too happy about this. These guys got all their spectrum at no charge, and hey, why shouldn't they be allowed to operate broadband services in the spectrum they already have? (Note that I don’t use the word "own" here.) That’s a political, not a technical, question. My real purpose in this column is to suggest that the auction process is little more than the path to yet more hidden taxation. Prices for wireless broadband would be lower if this burden on the carriers didn't exist. While we're at it, let's break the FCC into at least two pieces, one which regulates and one which (if it must) generates revenue. Note that a similar division was recently put into place for the Federal agency which collects similar fees on the oil industry. Of course, it took the huge oil spill off Louisiana to get the bureaucrats moving in this case, so I'm not holding my breath. But there's an even bigger problem at work here, and that is that the regulators' current model of allocating spectrum to particular applications no longer makes sense. We can build very sophisticated cognitive radios today which can quickly switch frequencies and other operational parameters on a moment's notice. This means that we really should be looking not at licensing spectrum to individual operators, but rather deploying large pooled frequency bands that can be allocated based on instantaneous need; a spot market in licensed spectrum, if you will. No entity, perhaps with the exception of those involved in national security, should have exclusive access to spectrum. Today's technology allows us to deploy on-demand, priority-access, open-access, and network-neutral wireless broadband services that can easily serve us all, and, in the process, make the best use of that very precious natural resource. Do we have the political will to allow our thinking to be thus interrupted? I personally doubt it. But with the information superhighway increasingly becoming a highway in the sky, it's time for such an interruption to reach the front burner in the policy-making kitchen. The alternative is the perpetuation of the politics of scarcity, which seem to enrich everyone but the customer. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. 2010-04-20T15:34:00ZMathias On Mobility: Why Did Israel Ban The iPad?There's more than meets the eye here, even though frequency allocations and parameters such as transmit power are in fact a matter of national sovereignty.http://www.informationweek.com/news/224500036?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentYou <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400492">read it</a> right here in Information Week: "The Israeli government has barred importation of the iPad and is also seizing units from tourists who attempt to enter the country with one of Apple's new tablet-style computers." I can’t remember the last time I heard of anything like this. The lowly iPad as a threat to national security? Hmmm. The story, as I understand it, is that the iPad can operate on frequencies and/or at power levels not allowed for unlicensed use in Israel. That’s true. But, Earth to the Israeli spectrum police: just about every Wi-Fi chipset and consequently end-user device manufactured can do that as well. All those notebooks you’re not confiscating are also potential spectral threats. With minimal knowledge and a little tweaking, all kinds of incompatibilities can be created just about everywhere on the planet. Want to -- illegally, of course -- use Wi-Fi channels 12 and 13, which isn't allowed in the United States? No problem. How about the 4.9 GHz. licensed band? Ditto. Why, then, single out the iPad? There’s more than meets the eye here, obviously, but Israel has in fact raised a fair point. Specific frequency allocations, and other parameters such as transmit power and even allowed applications, are in fact a matter of national sovereignty. The use of the airwaves in any given country is in fact at the discretion of the local regulatory authorities. This is why GSM was never made available in the US on the same frequencies as are used almost everywhere else in the world, and why, and I know this comes as a surprise to some, Wi-Fi, the closest we have to a global radio standard apart from shortwave and air traffic control, also isn’t uniformly available everywhere. Normally this isn’t a problem. Client devices will automatically set default parameters according to the access point to which they connect, so, again, unless a user goes in a tweaks certain settings that most users should never tweak, there should be nothing to fear. This begs the questions: suppose someone incorrectly sets, intentionally or otherwise, any given Access Point, so as to create a technically feasible but regulatorily unsound link? That could be trouble, but such a scenario isn’t specific to any particular product. As is often the case, they have to catch you first. This is actually pretty hard to do, and involves active monitoring and locating. Given the limited range of unlicensed devices like Wi-Fi adapters, and their mobile, infrequent, low-duty-cycle usage, it doesn’t seem likely that anyone is going to get caught unless a concerted effort is put in place. While interference from a misbehaving device isn’t going to bring down a network, this might in fact be done, for, say, political reasons. I think that’s what’s going on here. If you’ve been following the news, there appears to be little love lost between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu. Their last meeting at the White House didn’t go well. Something about building houses on the West Bank, and/or perhaps Iran. No matter; nations are known to behave at least moderately irrationally when trying to make a point; just ask those hikers who strayed into Iran or the American journalists detained under equally suspect conditions in North Korea. Want to demonstrate that you matter? Ban the iPad, even though in reality it poses no more spectral risk than any other Wi-Fi device. It’s an easy way to make a point without subjecting innocent users to hard labor. To be fair, it may be that Apple’s drivers need some tweaking to take international use into consideration. The current product, after all, is designed for the US market only. That fix, if required, should be easy enough. But, in the interim, the chance of bringing down Wi-Fi networks or interfering with government radio systems is really pretty minimal. Israel, home to some of the finest RF engineers anywhere, knows this. I’ve often said that marketing is today more important than technology. It would appear that politics is as well. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. 2010-03-23T11:16:00ZMathias On Mobility: Palm's Cautionary TaleThe smartphone maker placed all its hopes on webOS, but no one cares about operating systems anymore, at least not directly -- we buy user interfaces and apps. http://www.informationweek.com/news/224200029?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentMy initial analysis of Palm’s Pre handset at announcement in January of last year was that, yes, it’s cool, but (a) why announce it so far in advance of availability (almost never a good idea with technology products), and (b) there’s no clear sustainable competitive advantage. Indeed, it seemed that Palm was committing the ultimate cardinal sin of pushing technological innovation for its own sake, without having all of the pieces in place, and riding on the coolness coattails of the iPhone. Speaking of, and to be fair, the iPhone itself has gone through three iterations so far, with another likely this year, and it too was missing the giant app library and key enterprise features at announcement. Many consequently, I think, ignored Palm’s fundamental disadvantages, not realizing that times had changed. I write this column as a fan of Palm. I’ve owned many Palm products over the years, including a couple of Pilots and a Treo 650. I worked with Palm founder Jeff Hawkins at GRiD Systems in the early ‘80s, and I thought the initial model that he showed me at Palm’s first announcement was innovative, groundbreaking, just plain cool, and a perfect fit for the emerging market demand for an organizer that really worked. Palm also produced one of the first integrated PDA phones, and, again, there was that Treo 650, a truly great product perfect for its time. But that was then, as they say, and this is now. I’m not a financial analyst, but I was amazed at the runup in Palm’s stock from a low of $1.42 on 9 December 2008 to a peak of $17.46 on September 30th, 2009. This made no sense. Again, where was the sustainable competitive advantage? In cost? In distribution? In apps? In what? Alas, there really wasn’t much there. As I write this, Palm’s stock is in the middle of a precipitous dive based on dismal financial performance, mostly the result of <a href=http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000153>poor sales</a> of its new handsets. They’ve got a ton of <a href=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/03/att_scores_palm.html>unsold inventory</a> that needs to be blown out. Some financial analysts are predicting that <a href=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/02/will_palm_survi.html>Palm will fail</a> entirely. That’s not going to happen. But Palm did place all of its hopes on yet another proprietary mobile operating system, webOS, and that was the company's undoing. No one cares about operating systems anymore, at least not directly -- rather, we buy user interfaces and apps. Despite what Apple might tell you, the homogenization of the mobile user interface is now well underway, and it’s going to be hard to gain competitive advantage from the UI alone going forward. As for apps, another GUI for programmers doesn’t help -- software remains expensive to write and port, and developers clearly prefer a big installed base -- think iPhone, again, and BlackBerry. Palm really has nothing to enable the firm to gain competitive advantage against these two leaders. The real winner in the mobile OS space <a href=http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000277>is going to be Linux</a>, upon which, to be fair, webOS is based, for reasons of cost and popularity among programmers. And that cost element is critical. But since the OS alone provides no real competitive advantage, Palm is under significant software-related cost pressure to maintain the proprietary elements of its products -- not good, given how expensive programmers are. Of course, so are Apple and RIM, but they’re selling well, and Palm is not. And, worse still, the entire handset space is ripe for consolidation, as innovation slows, big app libraries and installed bases dominate purchasing decisions, standards have a greater impact, and, again, cost containment is king. Asian vendors, who have the lowest-cost engineering and manufacturing, should do just great, along with those who really know marketing and work the channel appropriately (think Apple and RIM). Palm has none of these assets going for it. Regardless, Palm’s current products <a href=http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218101430>really are terrific</a>, and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend them. After all, what’s the useful life of a handset? Two years, max. Palm <a href=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/03/will_hp_buy_str.html>will be acquired</a> well before then, and customer investments will be protected in the interim. But victims resulting from consolidation are inevitable as the industry converges to common functionality as a result of product homogenization -- just as was the case with the PC. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. 2010-03-01T15:48:00ZMathias On Mobility: Skype & Verizon Are Path To 4GThe landline/Internet communications services we so depend upon will be available in the mobile world sooner rather than later.http://www.informationweek.com/news/223101056?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentLast August <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219100301">I looked</a> at the controversy surrounding 4G wireless, beginning with the definition. While it's natural and indeed simple to reduce the essence of a given technology to something easily quantifiable, like throughput, such is ultimately self-defeating in the world of wireless, and perhaps all of IT, because we constantly lie to ourselves about what a given technology can really do. No, 4G isn’t going to give us 100 Mbps at Layer 7. But it will give us an all-IP network, and, just as has been the case with wire and particularly the Internet, that would be nothing short of wonderful. But, again as I also noted last August, 4G is likely a long ways off for reasons of simple economics. Rather, extensions to 3G are a much more likely path, at least for the next five years or so, to that all-IP nirvana. Want evidence? It's here, and in several forms. While the voice side of 3G isn’t based on VoIP, the data capabilities of 3G can easily support IP streams with sufficient bandwidth and time-bounded behavior to allow voice traffic over a channel that was originally designed just for asynchronous data. In fact, many people have for some time been using Skype clients, in particular, to merrily chat away on what is supposed to be a data-only network. Namely, the separately-priced data services operated by the cellular carriers. While I've experienced occasional quality-of-service problems (the same as we find on wire from time to time), overall this has worked well. Plus, it's been a real budget-saver for those of us who travel internationally, as international cellular roaming remains pricey, albeit convenient. In fact, the only showstopper with respect to wide-spread adoption of Skype on handsets has been the carriers own prohibition of using such a service. (Check your contract; if it's more than a few months old, you may find that VoIP is expressly prohibited.) But that's changing. Most notably, Verizon Wireless is going to allow Skype calls over its data network. The usual Skype rates will apply--free to a few cents a minute, depending upon location--although Verizon will count minutes used on calls to landlines and off-network numbers against one’s monthly plan. Fair enough, but keep in mind that carrier data networks--most notably AT&T's, due to heavy iPhone usage--have been under siege. Many have asked if the necessary capacity to support real-time voice will be there. We'll have to wait and see as the inevitable volume builds, but I'm betting that carrier upgrades in terms of both capacity and coverage will allow VoIP to work quite successfully. This deal isn’t the only one. Convergence/mobile unified communications leader Agito Networks recently announced a similar capability, in this case also aimed at international travelers trying to save a few bucks on what is otherwise very expensive talk. AT&T has also relented and will allow Skype use over its data network, not just Wi-Fi, as well. I think these moves are first pickles out of the jar, and, as I alluded to above, the first steps toward a 4G future of everything on IP, but, again, without requiring the expensive 4G upgrade in order to get the show on the road. Voice standards for LTE, for example, are still the subject of much debate, and, regardless, 4G is still at least a few years away from critical mass. It's nice to know, then, that the landline/Internet communications services we so dearly love and depend upon will be available in the mobile world sooner rather than later. We still have a long way to go in terms of providing uniform services over cellular and Wi-Fi, and, on some platforms little details like multitasking to work out. But the progress is there, and the benefits to us mere users are obvious. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows. Read our new report on how IP telephony is being used in healthcare settings. <a href="http://analytics.informationweek.com/abstract/105/2333/Healthcare/best-practices-ip-telephony-in-healthcare-settings.html?k=axxe&cid=article_axxe">Download the report now</a> (registration required). 2010-01-26T06:00:00ZMathias On Mobility: The Infocentric EraOur columnist says that, as IT resources and applications move into the cloud, the computer no longer matters--only the information does. http://www.informationweek.com/news/222400505?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentIt's 2010, and that inspires thoughts about what's next, what the key strategies should be going forward, and how we can continue to use IT for cost containment, competitive advantage, and enhancing the bottom line. All of these elements are critical as we exit what has been, for almost everyone, a very painful recession. As an entrepreneur and small-business owner I'm always optimistic about the future, but it's safe to say that the business climate will continue to place an ever-greater emphasis on cost/performance for some time. As a direct consequence, more workers will be mobile; the office will continue to become an abstraction. And everyone's dependence upon timely access to information, communications, and other IT resources, no matter where they might happen to be, will continue to grow. Advances in wireless technology were profound in the last decade, but the next 10 years will be remembered as the era where we all became, for lack of a better term, truly location-independent. In short, the transition over the next few years will be to what I like to call the era of infocentricity. In the early days of computers, it was all about the computer. Mainframes lived in big glass houses, cost vast sums of money, and were assigned primarily menial tasks like payroll. It was all very complex, machine-specific, and very exciting. This was the compucentric era -- the computer mattered. As mainframes evolved into minis, a new trend emerged. Information was moving closer to the user, and computers took on new roles. The invention of the microprocessor and the LAN led to the PC and the client/server architectures, which remain the norm today. But the PC and the LAN no longer really matter. Rather, users care about the applications they have access to. These include primarily office suites, browsers, and the occasional custom, enterprise-specific tool, but the application-centric era is now well established -- so much so that many IT managers look no further. New PCs show up every few years, the network gets an upgrade, but the rate of change has slowed markedly. Or has it? It's very likely that all of those mobile users have a wireless handset today, and the trend there is towards smartphones, many of which look remarkably like PCs in terms of architecture, implementation, and facilities. Apps are all the rage, and firms like Apple use essentially the same marketing pitch for handsets that worked so well for PCs: buy me, I've got the most apps. Yet something profound is happening, Apart from games and a few other apps, most of those apps are really front-ends for applications which are essentially Web services, or otherwise running in the cloud. The real issue is formatting for the small screen, not local execution. So apps aren't really as bound to devices as is the case with the PC. That's what the info-centric era is really all about -- moving IT resources into the cloud, and enabling access for authorized users on a very broad range of devices, from PCs to a wide variety of otherwise incompatible handsets. The computer no longer matters -- only the information does. There are real cost benefits here as well. Write once, run anywhere comes to mind, but we'll also see users selecting (yes, they'll own them) the most appropriate device for the job with no additional requirements placed on IT. I can even see borrowing someone's handset, using smartcard-based two-factor authentication, doing what I need to do, and then handing the device back with no concern about security. It's all about the information, not the device. The PC isn't dead yet, but, well, you get the idea. Info-centricity is a direct consequence of mobility. If you believe, as I do, that mobility is now essential to business, and that even a netbook gets pretty heavy after a while, info-centric IT is likely to be the most important trend of the coming decade. Craig Mathias is a Principal with Farpoint Group, a wireless and mobile advisory firm based in Ashland, MA. Craig is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and mobile computing technologies. He is a well-known industry analyst and frequent speaker at industry conferences and trade shows.2004-12-07T14:49:00ZWi-Fi Planet Show ReportExhibitors at the conference demonstrate the amazing breadth Wi-Fi has achieved -- and the upcoming technological challenges.http://www.informationweek.com/news/55300377?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentWith the latest in the bi-annual Wi-Fi Planet conferences (held last week in San Jose) now in the history books, I think it's safe to say that the Wi-Fi space is alive, well, and perhaps never in better shape. The conference served to point out the amazing breadth that Wi-Fi has achieved, and also highlighted upcoming technological and marketing challenges faced by what is still an industry in adolescence. Oddly, one of the hottest topics was WiMAX, arguably a Wi-Fi competitor and occasionally positioned by some as the eventual replacement for Wi-Fi. There's still significant confusion over the WiMAX that will be based on the fixed-microwave 802.16-2004 standard, and the still-a-work-in-progress mobile version based on the activities of the 802.16e Task Group. The general consensus was that we'll see mobile WiMAX products likely on the order of 18 to 24 months from now. While most felt that fixed WiMAX would see significant application in public-access Wi-Fi backhaul, especially when deployed in metro-scale mesh architectures, the role of the mobile WiMAX generated significant debate. Steve Saltzman of Intel Capital was quite bullish during the closing analyst roundtable, predicting an aggressive schedule for mobile WiMAX deployment via a strategy of including WiMAX chips in notebook computers something Intel clearly really likes. And one might argue that creating demand-side pull via ubiquitous client capabilities is a great strategy (hey, it's worked for Wi-Fi!). But mobile WiMAX will require the support of carriers and operators, access to (expensive) licensed spectrum, and face competition from 3G cellular, 4G cellular (not clearly defined yet, but essentially high-speed wireless IP service with VoIP), and Wi-Fi itself when deployed across metro areas " an increasingly frequent phenomenon. The future of mobile WiMAX is thus unclear, but one can't discount the impact of the effort behind it. Mesh Thoughts Speaking of public access Wi-Fi, meshes were the other really hot topic at the show. Sessions on mesh architectures and technologies were packed, and the core issue for debate was whether multiple radios per mesh node will ultimately be required. With a single radio, of course, operation is store-and-forward a given infrastructure node (mesh access point) can be communicating with a client or another infrastructure node, but clearly not both at the same time. Francis DaCosta of Mesh Dynamics presented compelling evidence that the accumulated latency in such an approach would quickly result in unacceptable performance. But other panelists in "The Great Mesh Debate" were unconvinced, believing that the relatively light loads typical of public-access Wi-Fi meshes to date could easily be handled with single-radio architectures, and that adding additional mesh nodes would similarly assist here. The issue, of course, is ultimately cost more radios, more expense. But Strix Systems took advantage of the conference to announce its multi-radio outdoor mesh unit, with support for up to six radios. With declining Wi-Fi hardware costs, it does seem that multi-radio meshes will eventually dominate. Antenna Angle Antennas were also a major topic, both on and off the show floor. Multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) systems, still new to most in the Wi-Fi community, were addressed both as raw technology as well as in the context of 802.11n. The 802.11n panel reached a consensus (still pretty much a guess, however) that 802.11n-compliant products will hit the market during the second quarter of 2006, ahead of most analyst expectations. Current evidence presented shows a rough doubling of spectral efficiency in today's "pre-n" (a term that still raises hackles among some) products now in the stores. Beyond MIMO, I was personally intrigued by InterDigital's adaptive interference management (AIM) antenna. This is a tiny, inexpensive electrically-steerable Wi-Fi antenna with associated software designed for interference mitigation. InterDigital is claiming a 100% improvement in (effective) throughput and an 80% improvement in range, and announced Atmel as its first customer for this product. Motia was also showing its Javelin adaptive-beamforming antenna. Many, including some design engineers, still discount the impact of the antenna on overall radio performance. I like to remind them that the antenna is like the tires on a car the only part of the complex machine that actually touches the medium. As you driving enthusiasts already know, improving the tires can make the car feel like an entirely different vehicle altogether. The same is true in radio. New Technology and Trends Returning to our opening theme of the broadening of the Wi-Fi industry, a number of other technologies, applications, and trends were more than evident: <li>Location and tracking Wi-Fi based location and tracking systems were quite visible, with Ekahau, Newbury Networks, and PanGo Networks hosting good traffic on the show floor. Resolution of these systems can approach a few meters, and even better in some cases. There was a lot of discussion of location-based security as well. Privacy remains a concern, however, as does the need for the client device to be powered up for Wi-Fi based security to work. <li>VoWiFi VoIP over Wi-Fi was nearly universally hailed as a core driver for the WLAN industry going forward. VoFi becomes particularly important once combined cell/Wi-Fi phones are available, but there are still issues of cost and power consumption to be resolved here. There don't, however, seem to be any technical showstoppers, although there were concerns about the viability of the standalone public-access supplier market. The role that the cellular carriers will ultimately play provided a basis for some debate, especially given the vast amount of free access available in most urban areas. And there was debate over the role of government is enabling (if not operating) public-access Wi-Fi services. Overall, I left Wi-Fi Planet with the impression that the Wi-Fi space is vibrant, that the enterprise market is growing, and that performance will improve, in terms of throughput, time-bounded services, and perhaps even power consumption. The only complaint was the amount of traffic on the show floor (and maybe the number of exhibitors present), not really all that bad especially considering the relatively limited marketing of the show both nationally and in San Jose. Craig Mathias is principal of Farpoint Group (Ashland, Mass.) 2004-12-06T10:09:00ZWhat You Need To Know About WiMAXLet's drop the "Wi-Fi on steroids" talk; it's time for a WiMAX reality check.http://www.informationweek.com/news/55300033?cid=SBX_iwk_related_commentary_Security_governmentEven if you don't work in wireless, you've heard a lot about WiMAX. Perhaps the most important message from the marketing types is that the technology, often called "Wi-Fi on steroids," eventually will replace Wi-Fi itself, and perhaps become the key mobile broadband connection for most users during the next few years. Let's drop the steroids talk; it's time for a reality check. First, WiMAX is great technology-but here I'm talking about the first WiMAX, based on the IEEE 802.16-2004 standard and soon to be codified by the WiMAX Forum. This is the standardization of fixed broadband wireless, a significant but not huge market and one that remains important nonetheless. It's hard to imagine WiMAX won't succeed in becoming the dominant force here. The lower prices typical of standardized products are enough to push WiMAX to the front of what has always been a fragmented but vital market. But most people think of WiMAX as a mobile technology, and this isn't the case yet. Mobile WiMAX depends on completing the 802.16e process, now under way but unlikely to be finished (especially by the WiMAX Forum) before late 2006. At that point, however, the installed base of Wi-Fi will be huge. Can we really imagine mobile WiMAX competing against Wi-Fi in the unlicensed bands? Doubtful at best. But suppose we persuade carriers and operators to devote some of their precious licensed spectrum to WiMAX? We should see more range and capacity than Wi-Fi, basestation by basestation. But will carriers really take the WiMAX plunge? Will they compete against their own 3G and other emerging 4G services? This is where all that hype breaks down. We'll see hybrid Wi-Fi/WiMAX basestations/access points, with user access via Wi-Fi and backhaul via WiMAX. We'll certainly see some mobile WiMAX by itself, but I think most mobile broadband users will use combined 3G/Wi-Fi subscriber units at least through the end of the decade. Beyond that, perhaps a gradual movement to mobile WiMAX, maybe even incorporating VoIP. The great truth in wireless-and maybe all of technology-is that things always take longer than they should. In the meantime, even though "MAX" sounds better than "Fi," WLAN market growth will remain more than robust. Craig Mathias is principal of Farpoint Group (Ashland, Mass.).