I usually like standards. They can crop up in standards organizations and committees
and make it easier to plug things together. Then, de facto standards can grow
organically - and get pushed by companies with big bucks. Unfortunately, such
pushing often results in standards that don't necessarily provide interoperability.
Likewise, there can be issues as to whether a standard is open or closed. Closed
standards tend to limit the field, often allowing vendors to maintain higher prices.
The home market has been ripe for standards, especially in the booming multimedia
space. The two major organizations in this segment of the industry are DLNA (Digital
Living Network Alliance) and HANA (High-Definition Audio-Video Network Alliance).
Both are pushing standards that ride atop an IP network and are designed to provide
vendor interoperability.
In theory, they could potentially simplify the plethora of cabling found behind most
component multimedia systems. Initially, though, it's unlikely that they will reduce the
interface complexity found on devices like HDTVs, which will continue to sport half a
dozen interfaces to satisfy the range of buyers.
HANA's more conservative goals target a specific class of multimedia devices, such
as DVD players, PVRs, HDTVs, and stereo receivers. Although HANA can utilize different
network implementations, its primary platform will be IEEE 1394. This wonderful
standard is mandated for set-top boxes and found on many camcorders and even a
few PCs, but it's not as ubiquitous as Ethernet or 802.x Wi-Fi. The HANA standard
should be making its rounds soon, but that puts it behind DLNA.
DLNA is an interesting group (see "What Can We Say About DLNA?" p. 52). The
DLNA standard is designed to provide interoperability, but the organization does not
define new standards. Instead, it refines existing standards, particularly UPnP (Universal
Plug-n-Play).
The UPnP standard is open and available without charge, but DLNA is closed and
available only to member companies. In theory, a UPnP-based device could be used
in a DLNA environment, but the limitations and difficulties of using a non-DLNA certified
device would be problematic. Interestingly, DLNA stacks for Linux are readily
available, for a fee.
The big advantage to DLNA is its certification. Each product must be certified
before the DLNA logo can go on the product's box. The DLNA logo is popping up, but
searching your local electronics store for DLNA may not deliver the list you expect.
That will likely change as DLNA compliance becomes more important to buyers.
These standards offer an opportunity to embedded developers to make solutions
that are better integrated with third-party products, reducing the cost of the solution.
For example, a DLNA environment would typically have at least one controller and
server that can service any DLNA device on the network.
This would include something like linking a computer-controlled sprinkler system to
a security and monitoring system. Incorporating the solution into the network would
reduce the number of interface devices a user had to contend with. Likewise, it opens
up a potentially more robust display interface that would otherwise increase the cost
of the solution.
Hopefully, these standards will clean up cabling clutter - and developers will be
able to hear about how to implement them.
DLNA - www.dlna.org
HANA - www.hanaalliance.org
UPnP - www.upnp.org