Gene Frantz
TI Principal Fellow and Business Development Manager, DSP

In past blogs, I’ve noted my dissatisfaction with industry terminology such as using the term “intimate” rather than “personal” when describing trends in consumer electronics. I don’t do this to nit pick or to create controversy but rather to bring a level of clarity that I feel is important. As Mark Twain said, the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between “lighting” and “lightning bug.”

The term I have come to find inadequate is “security,” though I’m guilty of using it as a catch-all to describe what is becoming a boom market for the semiconductor industry. Ultimately, it does not embrace the actual concerns – and opportunities – in this thriving area in the same way that “personal” could not capture the essence of the trend toward intimate technology.

I prefer the term “safety and privacy” to describe what is driving this market - which can cover what is occurring in both public areas, such as airports, as well as in the home and office. For example, every time I go to the airport, there seems to be a different goal between me and the airport security. I get the feeling that airport security is trying to protect the airport from me (nope, we’ve never lost an airport). On the other hand, I just want to be assured that I will arrive at my city of destination safely - without anyone knowing my bank account number.

There is no doubt that safety is the predominant issue, and certainly “security” is a synonym for this. In the wake of 9/11 and with ever-present concerns for protection in the home, consumers are demanding products that make them feel safe. Security cameras are the vanguard products answering this demand for physical safety, but there are other issues that come to the forefront.

When talking about DSPs, we often talk about tradeoffs – power for performance, cost for power, etc – and tradeoffs are a concern when talking about safety, but at a different level. The question is, how much of our privacy are we willing to give up in return for safety? The answer is, as little as possible.

It is my contention that it is the ancillary concern for privacy that will continue to propel this market. As a consumer, I want to know that I am safe, not only from the perceived dangers of the world, but also from invasions into my personal life. I want to know that an intelligent security camera will detect a criminal or terrorist, raising the appropriate alarm, but will protect my friends and family from the same indignity. I want to know that information about me – bank accounts, pin numbers, purchasing patterns – will not stolen by thieves, or worse, sold to telemarketers. I want to know that I didn’t have to make a huge tradeoff in order to feel protected.

By addressing the growing concern for privacy as well as safety, manufacturers will continue to see exponential gains in this market.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006 at 3:53 pm and is filed under DSP. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.