Short sighted?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Reading another thread about a new Futaba radio prompts the question about the future for radio manufacturers. It seems that all the major players have taken the decision to lock out third party suppliers by building their RF stages integrally as opposed to having removable modules which, prior to 2.4 GHz and during the introduction of the technology was becoming the norm for most systems.

This is fairly likely to be a deliberate decision to lock users in to their products (with a possible benefit to reliability) and seems logical until you see it from the point of view of the user of another manufacturer's product.

I like Futaba - it's what I'm used to and have confidence in but I also took the decision 4 years or so ago to adopt Jeti telemetry via a plug in module - a decision that I'm very comfortable with and anticipate using with my 10C for several years. I recently bought one of Jeti's Profi display modules which has enhanced an already good system significantly. The problem comes when I decide it may be time for a new transmitter...

Jeti have some beautifully made transmitters out but they are, although probably excellent value for what you get, significantly more expensive than, for example, the new Futaba 14SG. If it was possible to connect a Jeti module to one, I'd be seriously interested in one as a potential replacement were I considering a new transmitter at this time. In a few years time I'll probably have even more Jeti receivers and telemetry modules as an inducement to stay with Jeti - the cost of re-equipping would probably swing me towards seeing the rather sobering cost of a DS16 at something like 3 times the price of the 14SG as the way to go.

The user of any other manufacturer's products will also have similar considerations if contemplating switching systems and as new entrants to the hobby are fairly likely to adopt a low cost system, the established "quality" sytem userbase seems likely to decline over time. Futaba seem to be making a belated effort to enter the bind and fly market but I fear they've missed the boat.

Without getting into a mine is better than yours "discussion" what do others feel about being effectively locked in to a manufacturer's system and effects on long term viability - especially as even within brands, changes have been made rendering some of their equipment incompatible with different versions - something likely to increase with time?

Edited By Martin Harris on 24/12/2012 11:56:19

[John Muir]

I think the Chinese manufacturers are on the case. Upcoming transmitters from Turnigy and FRSky will be module based so you can use whatever RF variant you like, as long as you can get a JR style module. The FRSky tx will have their own system built in to the unit plus a module dock on the back so that you can switch between the two. FRSky for most things plus DSM2/X for bind and fly models for instance. The big names in RC may be cutting down on module production too, but the Chinese manufacturers have reverse engineered at least DSM2/X and probably others and will produce the required modules too. All at a fraction of the cost of the originals.

They'll start at the low end of the market, but give them time and the transmitters will get better and more sophisticated. Futaba, JR, Hitec and Spektrum may have a fight on their hands.

[Frank Skilbeck]

The counter arguement would be that the RC manufacturers don't make too much money on the tx's (once you've factored in the development costs) and rely on the sales of additional rx's, telemetry sensors etc to bring in extra revenue.

Also will be intersteing to see how long the Chinese remain a low cost supplier, remember at one time the Japanese surplanted the American/European rc manufacturers by better and cheaper products, but now they are facing the same competition as their cost base has risen and they have to recoup the development costs as opposed to building on the back of others development work.

Already we've seen the release of the FrSky and Turnigy 9XR tx's not clearly defined while they are undergoing development, but if somebody sees a sizable market niche for a Tx that takes various modules then they may well release a product for that market.

[Erfolg]

I do think you are correct in that the prices of Chinese radio will rise. If history is any indicator, not to the same comparative levels as todays equipment. Which is also true of present day radio equipment when comparing costs with early equipment.

Where I have some difficulty is that on a comparative basis, today there only seems to be a few mainstream radio equipment suppliers, where as in the 70's there in the region of a hundred or so.

Even so I would be surprised to see Futaba or JR go. On the same basis, I would question the viability of Multiplex, Graupner and some like Jarama.

We will see what the future holds, it will have some surprises, like Sanwa, becoming a bit player today. In the 80's i would never had made such a prediction. Perhaps the one clue, is the totally different servo lead polarities to all the others in that era. Could it be that trying to lock out competitors, can have unforeseen consequences?

Edited By Erfolg on 24/12/2012 21:23:03

[Frank Skilbeck]

Sanwa is still strong in the US (sold under the Airtronics brand), but suffered here when their distributor (Irvine) was taken over, since then they've had only sporadic reprsentation.

Graupner we already know are struggling, Multiplex having the same owner as Hitec no longer sell radios in the US (I think Multiplex and Hitec missed a trick be not being compatible here) so their market size is reduced and Jarama only rebadge Chinese radios anyway.

There's a new Turnigy 9XR out and it looks pretty good, but you have to provide your own module, will be interesting to see if they launch a CE approved version and have a distributor in Europe, but this would entail additional costs.

[ken anderson.]

i think - like it or lump it we are going to be dictated to as what we can have by CHINA....... they are going to be the only driver in the seat......i think it will be impossible for anyone else to compete with them? ... not only modelling stuff...but practically everything....

ken anderson ne..1... egg foo/chow mein dept...

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 24/12/2012 21:21:37:

Could it be that trying to lock out competitors, can have unforeseen consequences?

Exactly the question that I'm trying to raise but probably haven't made very clear...!

[FlyinBrian]

Well, prior to the arrival of 2.4Ghz manufacturers had to accomodate different frequencies in different countries, also surface models used different frequencies to airborn. The way the did this was to use RF modules specific to the market the equipment was sold into.

With the advent of 2.4Ghz which is virtually universal why would they need to use modules?

[Simon Chambers]

Also the fcc in the US stated that the Crystal was a key part of the rf circuit and so couldn't be changed without affecting the approval of the module. So it was required to replace the module to change frequencies in the US and thus dictated a module bay.

The lack of compatibility on 2.4 is due to the RF chips using different modulation, frequency and bandwidth settings that aren't compatible with each other. So it would require all manufacturers to use the same RF to make them compatible. However doing that would devoid the marketing departments of promoting differences as advantages...

On the positive side there is a limited selection of suitable RF ic's available, so there is commonality between manufacturers. Thus it's possible for a receiver to work with several brands. I'm going to make a prediction for 2013 that we will start seeing multi brand compatible receivers.

Si

Edited By Simon Chambers on 26/12/2012 17:04:08

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

That may very well be good for sales of compatible receivers but how will it affect the traditional manufacturers? As Frank Skillbeck pointed out in an earlier post, it seems likely that the main revenue is in receiver sales. Back in the 35 MHz (72 etc. in the USA) days, I'd suggest that many modellers would buy receivers from the major manufacturers for their serious models and maybe use compatibles for smaller/cheaper ones - whether or not there are valid reasons, there's a comfort factor for many people in buying "premium" gear.

Perhaps I was slightly niaive in commiting to a system giving me a limited choice of transmitter in the future (although early impressions are that their products are superbly engineered and specified) and not considering the future availability of adaptable transmitters (short of modifications that would instantly invalidate their warranties) but the result is that I'm likely to spend a lot more money on a Jeti transmitter sometime in the future than to ever buy any more Futaba equipment. With each receiver or module I buy, I get further away from any brand loyalty I ever had...

[Erfolg]

The mine is better than yours, concept is what all manufactures strive for. The must have product. The justification, or validation, of i made the sensible purchase. The informed view, as we talk over the superiority of tera waffles, sustain rejection period, the importance of the colour of our, what ever, over a pint or more recently down at the field

Where things go to is any ones guess I certainly do not have a clue.

The embracing the closed system of 2.4 by the major manufacturers, was at least in part, an attempt to improving margins, by sole provision of additional equipment. Possibly hoping to make some additional money from licencing royalties, which would increase the costs of tier 2 suppliers to the retail market. As we have seen with Futaba, this is not always as successful as the Manufacturer had hoped for.

Will 2.4 come to resemble the 35 market place in the breadth of suppliers i do not know. I did note that in the past, the BMFA warned against the use of crystals from sources other than from the original equipment suppliers. Yet technically the justification was always based on an assumption that tier 2 crystal suppliers could not match or better original equipment suppliers. Will they take similar stances with respect to 2.4?

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

''God made the Earth in seven days......all the rest are made by Chinese''.....

[Frank Skilbeck]

Martin, might be worth waiting for the new FrSky Tx's due out next year, they will have their own new 2.4 protocol built in and a module port for other manufactures modules, so you could have one tx that would drive both Frsky and Jeti Rx's (or any other Rxs if you change out the module). Maybe this will start a new trend.

[Tony Smith 7]

An interchangeable module relies on a standard signal from the set to the module. With current technology this becomes a limiting factor - for example most sets and modules only support 8 channels using ppm, and the protocol also introduces latency now that data is sent frame by frame.