IEEE Start New Mobile Phone Battery Standard

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_p1725.html' target='_blank'>http://standards.ieee.org/announcem...s/pr_p1725.html</a><br /><br /></div>The IEEE is currently working on a new standard called P1725, which will deal with improving the reliability of lithium-ion and lithium-ion polymer batteries. The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) produces nearly 30 percent of the world's literature in the electrical and electronics engineering, computing and control technology fields, and their standards include WiFi and Firewire etc. The huge growth in the use of mobile phone (and PDA) batteries means that the time is right to introduce a new standard to help deliver greater power and energy density for mobile device batteries:<br /><br />"<i>The new standard will seek to make cellular phone batteries more robust by setting uniform criteria for their design, production and evaluation. It will consider battery and battery pack electrical and mechanical construction, chemistries, process control, qualification and packaging technologies, among other areas. It will be developed by companies that manufacture batteries, cells and handsets, as well as by carriers."</i>

[Ryan Joseph]

I think this is what stands in the way of development. I'm willing to bet the biggest reason we haven't seen VGA PPC Phone is because VGA and GPRS would drain the battery way too fast.

Developments in batteries are what's holding us back.

Oh, and Jonathon? I think you forgot to stop italic because the whole front page below this post is italic. :wink:

[Steven Cedrone]

Oh, and Jonathon? I think you forgot to stop italic because the whole front page below this post is italic. :wink:

Fixed! Thanks!

Steve

[Charles Pickrell]

I agree, dictating standards stifles innovation.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Developments in batteries are what's holding us back.
Guys, this standard should *help* battery development. Working to standards *helps* innovation. You can build on the solid work others have done and not have to re-invent the wheel each time around.

Standards are necessary for devices to work together - look at 1394 (FireWire) and 802.11x (WiFi). This new battery standard is surely a good thing?

[Ryan Joseph]

Developments in batteries are what's holding us back.
Guys, this standard should *help* battery development. Working to standards *helps* innovation. You can build on the solid work others have done and not have to re-invent the wheel each time around.

Standards are necessary for devices to work together - look at 1394 (FireWire) and 802.11x (WiFi). This new battery standard is surely a good thing?

No, no, no, you misunderstand me, poor choice of words on my part. I meant that the LACK of battery development is what's holding us back. I think standards like this are great! They're exactly what we need. Sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. :oops:

[ricksfiona]

Yes, this is a great time to work on this issue... Thank you :D

[Jonathon Watkins]

No, no, no, you misunderstand me, poor choice of words on my part. I meant that the LACK of battery development is what's holding us back. I think standards like this are great! They're exactly what we need. Sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. :oops:

OK, sorry to misundersand you. I'll take the issue up with Charles Pickrell. :wink:

I agree, dictating standards stifles innovation.

Why is that, pray tell good sir? :)

[ADBrown]

I agree, dictating standards stifles innovation.

I guess you'll want to smash that computer in front of you then, since it's filled with nothing but dictated standards like PCI, AGP, CD-ROM, Ethernet, WiFi, ATA, SATA...

[Sven Johannsen]

Actually in this case I agree with Charles. I think there is a place for standards, but I don't see the benefit here. It's not like we need two vendor's batteries to talk to each other, nor do I think we need to specify form factors, and such. Specifying minimum output or something like that wouldn't accomplish much except reducing the number of batteries that get the seal.

Standards always stifle innovation. You can always add your own proprietary extensions to the standard as long as you are backward compliant with the standard, but then you need to convince the public to buy only your line, to take advantage of the non-standard enhancement. That innovation is despite the standard, not because of it, or enabled by it.

Even with an existing standard you can always come up with a new idea, but again you are obliged to convince folks your non-standard way is better.

Standards are normally written to the lowest common denominator of the existing capabilities, or to the de-facto standard in existance.

I don't see this making battery technology better, faster.

[ADBrown]

I see. So you don't mind if two computers are completely unable to communicate with each other because they use two completely incompatible proprietary systems? Or that every phone made for one carrier's network is completely incompatible with every other carrier? Or that you can't mix D-Link networking products with Netgear or Linksys? That Bluetooth and WiFi wouldn't exist, let alone USB, CompactFlash, or SDIO?

That's pretty crazy.

[ctmagnus]

imo, if you can take an older-style battery out of a device and replace it with a newer design that lasts longer without having to replace any of the rest of the device, that can only be a good thing.

[surur]

Standards always stifle innovation. You can always add your own proprietary extensions to the standard as long as you are backward compliant with the standard, but then you need to convince the public to buy only your line, to take advantage of the non-standard enhancement. That innovation is despite the standard, not because of it, or enabled by it.

Even with an existing standard you can always come up with a new idea, but again you are obliged to convince folks your non-standard way is better.

Standards are normally written to the lowest common denominator of the existing capabilities, or to the de-facto standard in existance.

I don't see this making battery technology better, faster.

I can see where you are coming from, and I agree. A, AA, AAA, C, D etc batteries have been standard for ages. I have not seen amy major innovation in that area either.

Surur

[Jonathon Watkins]

I can see where you are coming from, and I agree. A, AA, AAA, C, D etc batteries have been standard for ages. I have not seen amy major innovation in that area either.

:huh: Yes, I can see how you are missing out on those AAAA, AAAAA and CC batteries that were never produced due to the agreed battery standards. :huh:

At PPCT there have been various battery technology posts over the past while. There is progress, though it is incremental rather than revolutionary.

Last time I looked a high power AA battery lasted a lot longer than one five years ago. Progress in the battery research area is a lot slower than in the IT sector. That's due to problems with the chemistry and the basic technology. The whole are is just not as responsive and reactive as the rest of the IT industry. Making batteries more reliable and powerful is a worthy goal for this new standard.

All I am saying, is give the IEEE a chance. :wink:

[Sven Johannsen]

I see. So you don't mind if two computers are completely unable to communicate with each other because they use two completely incompatible proprietary systems? Or that every phone made for one carrier's network is completely incompatible with every other carrier? Or that you can't mix D-Link networking products with Netgear or Linksys? That Bluetooth and WiFi wouldn't exist, let alone USB, CompactFlash, or SDIO?

That's pretty crazy.

I assume you are talking to me. Did you miss the part where I said there was a place for standards? If you believe standards are written and then people build to them, you are jumping in the middle of evolution. We would still be running on ISA bus, with memory architectures that couldn't address more than 640K, on 10base2 thicknet ethernet. Those didn't change because the standards changed, the standards changed because of innovation outside the standard. Sometimes in concert or colusion with a standards body, but mostly because of innovation on one or a couple of EOM's part and then politics.

But were not talking about communications here, we are talking about batteries.

imo, if you can take an older-style battery out of a device and replace it with a newer design that lasts longer without having to replace any of the rest of the device, that can only be a good thing.

Standards aren't going to give you that. Unless they go so far as to specify the form factor and physical connection arrangement of all future PDA/Cell/phone/portable device batteries. Can you imagine trying to run your Portable Media Center off a battery that fits in your cell phone, or conversly the size of the cell phone that could hold a battery appropriate for the PMC? Right now you can get that with third party replacement batteries based on the potential market for them.

Incidentally, if the IEEE wants to tackle a standard for power requirements (5v) and connector (pick one) for portable devices, I'm behind them 100%.

[jimski]

Incidentally, if the IEEE wants to tackle a standard for power requirements (5v) and connector (pick one) for portable devices, I'm behind them 100%.

We that would be a good start. And how about these new non-contact charger pads, where you drop your cellphone, PDA, MP3 player and whatever else on the pad when you get home (or into a hotel room) and they are all trickle charging.

If six different companies develop six different technologies, each battery manufacturer will need to chose and you will have chaos (or a lot of charger pads around your house). Sure, standards may breed politics and we might not wind up with the best there is, but I would sure like to put my devices down anywhere in the free world and know that they can charge.

[ADBrown]

I assume you are talking to me. Did you miss the part where I said there was a place for standards? If you believe standards are written and then people build to them, you are jumping in the middle of evolution. We would still be running on ISA bus, with memory architectures that couldn't address more than 640K, on 10base2 thicknet ethernet.

Nonsense. Those things changed because had to--technology advanced and made them obsolete. The reason that everything is cross-compatible, however, is because of standards. Whether you acknowledge it or not, most of the time a technology came into being as a standard, not as something from one OEM. USB didn't come from one manufacturer, it came from a whole consortium working on a standard way of connecting peripherals. Same with Bluetooth, PCI, and a dozen other examples. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to recall the last time that a single tech company introduced a technology that you could really call a standard. Firewire, maybe.

And, if you think none of this applies because we're talking about batteries, consider this: this whole discussion started persuant to an article about how manufacturers are getting together to improve battery technology and manufacturing through standards. Improved capacity, greater durability, increased minimum life-cycle--all these things could come about through standardizing design and manufacturing.

Also, may I remind you that with the patent system the way that it is these days, standards are the only way to have truly compatible high technology? Back before 802.11g, D-Link and others made 'turbo' wireless gear that doubled 802.11b throughput to 22 Mbits, but you had to use 100% D-Link turbo gear. If some other company had tried to make their turbo gear compatible with D-Link's, D-Link would sue their asses off on the grounds of 'patent infringement'. So instead of Balkanizing the wireless world, 802.11g was developed to offer a standard for vastly greater bandwidth than the non-standard methods offered.

If anything, standards encourage more innovation, because you don't have to reinvent the wheel every five steps, and because it provides a base of established technology. When Microsoft debuted PocketPC 2002, they established a minimum standard that all new PPCs had to use an ARM processor and a reflective screen. That made more new applications practical and created a guaranteed stepping stone for developers.

And lastly, if you don't like whatever standard is available, don't use it! Nobody goes around forcing all companies to use standards and nothing else. If you want to try and build a better widget, go ahead, nothing is stopping you. You act like standards smother invention, but that's just not true. Yes, you have to convince the public to buy the non-standard tech, which is difficult, but it's difficult for a reason: non-standard tech is generally not as polished, more expensive, and incompatible compared to standard tech. Not to mention the ever-present possibility, seen time and time again, that the originating company will simply drop the technology and leave users holding the bag, something that couldn't happen with a standard. And no, standards are rarely written for the lowest common denominator of technology. More often they're written for the highest, for new technologies that are on the cutting edge. Look at the latest hard drive standard, Serial ATA, capable of 150 MB/second burst transfers. Up until recently, computers couldn't handle that any more than they could 54 Mbit/s wireless, 480 Mbit/s USB, or 2000 mAh batteries in the palm of your hand.

[gorkon280]

We need to have this happen. If we did have astandard across phones, we would see a mass produciton of these and we'd just go out and pick one up. Prices for Lithium Ion batteries would go down. Battery standards on cellphones would be a good thing.

[Sven Johannsen]

Guess we have a different view of the world. I haven't seen a standard yet, produced before the technology it described was solid. That doesn't necessarily mean widely available. Standards don't describe what you would like to have happen, or goals, they define the the way things are, so two things can meet in the middle. I can't see a standards body estabishing a standard based on as yet unatainable technology. If the standard is based on current technology then what is the incentive to surpass that. Whatever. Standards are great. At least there are enough of them that everyone can have one of their own.

[Charles Pickrell]

I guess you'll want to smash that computer in front of you then, since it's filled with nothing but dictated standards like PCI, AGP, CD-ROM, Ethernet, WiFi, ATA, SATA...

Aren't you being a bit extreme?

I was just trying to point out that I felt that standardizing batteries in mobile phones isn't going to encourage innovation. If I'm a mobile phone manufacturer and I'm expected to make my batteries compatible with everyone elses phone, why would I then try to make mine better? If my batteries were best, people could go out and buy a competing phone and stick my superior battery into it. That is a lost phone sale. Sure I sold a battery, but phone manufacturers make more money than battery companies do. Phone manufacturers want to differentiate their products, in order to generate new sales. Making the battery technology standardized could reduce that flexibility for manufacturers.

That being said, IEEE could create a standard that has built-in the flexibilities manufacturers need to be competitive, and develop an aggressive schedule to update and modernize the standard on a regular basis. Knowing how standards bodies work though, that is unlikely to happen. I doubt that many phone manufacturers will participate in setting or adopting this standard.

Of course I could be wrong.

[ADBrown]

Guess we have a different view of the world. I haven't seen a standard yet, produced before the technology it described was solid. That doesn't necessarily mean widely available. Standards don't describe what you would like to have happen, or goals, they define the the way things are, so two things can meet in the middle. I can't see a standards body estabishing a standard based on as yet unatainable technology. If the standard is based on current technology then what is the incentive to surpass that. Whatever. Standards are great. At least there are enough of them that everyone can have one of their own.

Not unattainable, but cutting edge. 802.11g was pretty hard-core when it was first introduced.

Yes, lots of times early-production hardware based on certain standards comes out while the standard itself is still being finalized--hell, some companies are trying to produce WiMAX gear. But they still come about because of the work done on the standard, and they are almost always compatible with the end product.

[ADBrown]

I was just trying to point out that I felt that standardizing batteries in mobile phones isn't going to encourage innovation.

They're not talking about standardizing the batteries themselves, but rather improved standards for chemistry, manufacturing, design, and other things that go into the construction of a particular battery, combining all the best elements to produce better batteries in general.

[surur]

They're not talking about standardising the batteries themselves, but rather improved standards for chemistry, manufacturing, design, and other things that go into the construction of a particular battery, combining all the best elements to produce better batteries in general.

Sounds like they will be standardising on a very average battery. I agree that standards are great for stability and growth of a medium e.g GSM standard was stable enough to be picked up all over the world, but they dont promote innovation.

WIFI is a good example. All the innovation happened outside of the standard, and were later adopted (or not) by the standard bodies.

To summarise: Standards are very good for the consumer, but by themselves they dont promote innovation. This standard will likely result in batteries that are interchangeable between your pocketpc and palm, and cheaper batteries, but its not going to result in stronger batteries (because they would likely be outside the standard range of chemistries etc).

Surur

[ADBrown]

Again, judging on the article, they are NOT standardizing anything about battery form-factors. This has to do with manufacturing, minimum levels of reliability, and improved durability. There's nothing stopping a company from making more powerful batteries, except the practical limitations of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion-Polymer technologies. The likelyhood of interchangable batteries coming out of this is negligible.

As for standards not promoting innovation... the GSM standard that you mentioned has allowed a vast variety of phones and data devices to be created that will work anywhere in the world. If each carrier used a different system, and a device had to be built specifically for a carrier, not one tenth of those products would have ever made it to market.

As for WiFi, I'd love to see you point out where somebody had 54 megabit WiFi in the 2.4 GHz range that was back-compatible before 802.11g was introduced.

[Sven Johannsen]

As for WiFi, I'd love to see you point out where somebody had 54 megabit WiFi in the 2.4 GHz range that was back-compatible before 802.11g was introduced.

Backward compatible is a buzz phrase. It's not rocket science to make a better faster anything that falls back to the previous standard. That's almost a given if you want to sell it. Unless you think you have enough clout that you can stuff your new 'standard' down the consumer's throat. Imagine a TV manufacturer trying to sell an HDTV that won't work with standard broadcasts. Nothing to be gained by not supporting the previous standard. Much to be gained by having your technology declared a standard. Being a standard doesn't place a technology in the public domain. The originator, or originators) still have the rights.

If they are going to define the minimum quality standards for batteries, do you think they are going to be set at a level only 10% of manufacturers can acheive today? 50%? All on the standards committe would be my guess. So what do we get? Probably some more consistancy and reliability at the capability we already have. Standards don't push the limit. If they did they wouldn't be standard.

What we'll get is a standard that manufacturers will have to submit their products for test to be able to slap a logo on them to say they meet it. It will cost them time and money.

[ADBrown]

Backward compatible is a buzz phrase. It's not rocket science to make a better faster anything that falls back to the previous standard.

You're dodging my question. Who 'innovated' 54 Mbit wireless before the prototype 802.11g units started hitting the market? 802.11a need not apply. In many cases, it's adoption of new standards that drives new products.

That's almost a given if you want to sell it. Unless you think you have enough clout that you can stuff your new 'standard' down the consumer's throat. Imagine a TV manufacturer trying to sell an HDTV that won't work with standard broadcasts.

Sony makes HDTVs now?

But seriously, thanks for making my point. TV resolution could never advance if you were dependant on a single company to push a new tech, because they would keep it to themselves, a rival would develop a different incompatible tech, and neither would be supported. Only a true standard can coordinate new technology on this scale.

Nothing to be gained by not supporting the previous standard. Much to be gained by having your technology declared a standard. Being a standard doesn't place a technology in the public domain. The originator, or originators) still have the rights.

True. Except that to be a standard, a technology must be documented, must be available for use at a set price, must be consistent, and must be supported rather than left at the whim of a single company.

And anyways, you seem to be arguing my part. Companies are highly motivated by the prospect of their technology becoming a standard, hence standards breed innovation. If there were no standards, and it was every manufacturer for themselves, there would be no great incentive to innovate rather than make the cheapest units for the most sales.

If they are going to define the minimum quality standards for batteries, do you think they are going to be set at a level only 10% of manufacturers can acheive today? 50%? All on the standards committe would be my guess. So what do we get? Probably some more consistancy and reliability at the capability we already have. Standards don't push the limit. If they did they wouldn't be standard.

54 Mbit wireless? HDTV? SATA? WiMAX? Anyone? Bueller?

Standards don't get set because they're what you already have. They get set because they're what you're going to have. You see the standard that you've already got, but you fail to see the one coming down the road towards you.

What we'll get is a standard that manufacturers will have to submit their products for test to be able to slap a logo on them to say they meet it. It will cost them time and money.

We're not talking a SIG or the equivalent here. We're talking about the IEEE. These guys are engineers by trade. They're hardly the types to waste time with PR and fluff. There are certainly intricate design details that we can't imagine, not spending our entire lives working with batteries, that these guys can improve upon.