Archive for May, 2013|Monthly archive page

A Tale of Two Samsung Galaxy S4s

In Design Methodologies, Education, Embedded Systems, Engineering Principles on May 14, 2013 at 7:23 PM

When you are in school or college, you are taught about the best ways to do things. It is generally about a point solution. Alternatives are rarely discussed in detail. One almost always looks for the best answer, the best method, the best algorithm. When you begin to work  for a company, you almost always realize that the best solution is not what one is always looking for. Time and market pressures play a role in choosing solutions. You can choose a solution that suits the “taste of the target market“. When you serve more than one market, then it becomes interesting. Would you want to choose two different solutions for two different markets for the same product? This is one of the reasons that analysts cite regarding what Samsung has done with its Galaxy S4 smart phone. While the US and the Korean versions appear identical on the outside, they use quite a number of different components. Their processors, wireless and image processing architectures are different. Supposedly, the Korean version is faster and has a longer battery life because it uses  Samsung’s Octacore Exynos 5 processor which has an architecture (read here) that helps to attain a balance of power efficient and performance more than the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor in the US version. iSuppli’s IHS Teardown Service reveals all the component level differences between the two designs here.

A more plausible reason for the difference in the two architectures is the fact that the LTE bands supported by mobile operators in US and Korea are different (see here). The two processors (essentially system on chips in this case) may not support both the LTE bands. However, it does illustrate an important point related to engineering product design. It shows that you can design the same product with different architectures. While not related to S4, this analysis reminds me of regulations in certain countries which make it compulsory for a manufacturer to source components from local suppliers for products to be sold in the local market.  An example is here. Therefore, as a manufacturer you can end up with different components in different markets for the same product.

I used to think that a consumer electronic item sold in different countries used the same components. That myth now stands broken! While you can easily spot the differences in software, prominent being the language used in user interface, it is not easy to spot differences in hardware.

On Diffusion of Innovations

In Education, Interdisciplinary Science, Research and Development, Startup on May 10, 2013 at 1:57 AM

Diffusion of Innovations is a remarkable book by Everett M. Rogers. It is also a field of study and research where questions related to the diffusion of innovations through different groups of people and cultures are studied. This theory seeks to explain how innovations spread, how they are adopted or rejected, their social impact and the rate at which these processes occur over a period of time. This book has plenty of examples of innovations that diffused and those that did not. Notable examples include the idea of water boiling that the public health service in Peru wanted to promote in a Peruvian village and failed in doing so; non-diffusion of the Dvorak keyboard; the relatively successful STOP AIDS campaign in San Francisco in the mid-1980s etc. Note that the use of the term innovation  is not restricted to technological innovations only. According to Rogers, “An  innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption“.

Technologists and engineers generally think that a new idea will sell itself, that advantageous innovations will be quickly adopted. However, this is seldom the case and the adoption, in general, is slow. This is a fact that is of relevance to many start ups. There are social and cultural aspects of innovation that have a big influence on its adoption. Influencing the adopters involves not only relevant marketing but also addressing social, cultural and economic issues. Of course the range of issues to be addressed depends on the innovation that we are trying to sell or promote.

It would come as a surprise to many that Everett M. Rogers was not from business or engineering background. He was a scholar in  communications and sociology!