I know next to nothing about Frost & Sullivan, but based on the information on their web page they are “the world leader in growth consulting and the integrated areas of technology research, market research, economic research, corporate best practices, training, customer research, competitive intelligence and corporate strategy.” They seem to be a very respectable market analysis company. If one reads material produced by a Frost & Sullivan analyst, one expects that it would be credible and trustworthy. So what is one to make of reading a recent article which includes the following quote attributed to an F&S analyst:
“The company’s sustainable competitive advantage lies in this proprietary modulation method, which differs from rival technologies that use tens to hundreds of thousands of waves to convey the same bit of information,” explains Thomas. “As each additional cycle requires commensurate power output, xG’s Flash Signal technology allows dramatic efficiency gains to be achieved and results in increased RF signal range.”
“… adds Thomas. “Moreover, in the context of power efficiency resulting from single-cycle signals, tests have shown that an xG base station transmitting full-motion video uses 3 million times less power than a typical 802.11 access point.””
How can anyone with some knowledge of wireless communications say this with a straight face?
The Thomas quoted here is (based on his web page) “Luke Thomas – a Research Analyst with Frost & Sullivan’s ICT Europe practice, specializing in wireless content and applications, and wireless broadband technologies.” In an earlier post “Theater of the Absurd” I have addressed a presentation by the same analyst where xMax is described as a likely competitor to WiMax and 3G LTE (I am not making this up!).
I am also completely baffled by the “Technology Innovation Awards” given by Frost and Sullivan to Gaiacomm International in 2004 (see my post “Wild Wireless”), and to xG Technology in 2007. What kind of a technical review was conducted before deciding to give these awards? I can’t imagine how any competent communication engineer could have approved these awards. I encourage the reader to look up Gaiacomm to fully appreciate the “reality failure” involved here.
So how can we trust anything we read on the web about wireless communication technology, even if it comes from seemingly respectable sources? If anyone has an answer to this rhetorical question please let me know ….