Picocell Equipment Vendor Matrix

The Picocell Equipment Vendor Matrix provides an evaluation of picocell vendors based on implementation and innovation that is then characterized by multiple criteria weighted according to their importance. These criteria are then assigned numerical scores for each vendor based on the characteristics of the picocell product, strategy, and market presence. Total scores from the criteria are then used to rank these vendors, based on their performance in each area. The criteria used that were specific to the evaluation of picocells include:

Implementation

  • Carrier footprint
  • Ecosystem/OEM partnerships
  • Femtocell market presence
  • Overall financial and organizational health
  • Enterprise relationships
  • Silicon sourcing strategy
Innovation
  • Cost
  • Integrated controller
  • Plug-and-play
  • Management capabilities
  • Scalability
  • IP backhaul
  • Power mechanism
  • Capacity
  • Form factor
  • Installation architecture
  • Alarm systems
  • Flavors
  • Security
ip.access tops the vendor matrix ranking based on the large footprint that the company has been able to achieve in the picocell market.

ip.access is the leading vendor in the market in terms of market share of 2G picocells. It continues to build upon its femtocell product portfolio apart from its picocell product and is in a good position to transfer some of the femtocell plug-and-play functionality into future versions of its picocell product. This would ultimately bring down the total cost of ownership of picocells, something that has been a thorny issue for operators. ip.access’s key competitor in the 2G picocell market, Radioframe Networks, is expected to reduce its focus and research efforts on 2G picocells, as it sees an increasing market for femtocells. This leaves ip.access as a dominating force in the 2G picocell market, where it is expected to remain relatively strong, especially in emerging markets. 2G picocells still make up the bulk of the picocells shipments in the world, although 3G picocells are expected to catch up soon. ip.access is very likely going to introduce a 3G version of its nanoGSM pico product, with self-provisioning, self-installation capabilities which will drastically reduce total cost of ownership. This will strengthen the company’s position in the picocell market, although it is seeing increasing competition from the likes of Huawei and ZTE.

ZTE and Huawei are near the top of the ranking, owing to their growing presence in the wireless infrastructure market in general. Both Huawei and ZTE have strong femtocell strategies that can help them gain a foothold in the picocell market and introduce innovative features in their picocell products quickly and cost-effectively. ZTE has a 3G pico NodeB product, something that most vendors do not have; with its growing influence in the femtocell market place, ZTE is in a strong position to compete with ip.access. Huawei are slightly behind ZTE in the rankings because the company has opted away from the standalone base station architecture and has a Remote Radio Head configuration. With picocells looking and feeling more like femtocells, the standalone base station architecture is more preferable. However, Huawei is gaining traction with its pico RRH product, and at the same time the company has a strong femtocell strategy to back it up.

Radioframe Networks has an innovative product and has been partly successful in the past with its 2G pico product. The company has had an OEM agreement with Nokia Siemens and has been supplying picocells to Orange in Europe. However, recent developments at Radioframe suggest that it might be moving away from its 2G picocell strategy and focusing on femtocells. The company is currently reviewing the development of a 3G picocell product aimed at the enterprise. Radioframe will continue to ship its 2G product, but is not expected to invest into a future roadmap for the product. Although Radioframe’s product is innovative compared to many of the other solutions, especially in terms of its capacity and manageability, it has not been able to gain traction in the market. Radioframe is the only vendor that has a picocell that can support seven users, which is between what a femtocell can support and a traditional picocell can support. This makes the company’s product ideal for the lower-end SME market. However, because its product is still a 2G product, Radioframe has been unable to get operators to use its picocell product. Its current picocell product looks and feels similar to a femtocell, which is a unique feature in the picocell market. Owing to the innovative features in Radioframe’s product, the company remains a contender in the vendor matrix rankings.

AirWalk Communications Inc is one of the few CDMA picocell vendors in the market and is also the only vendor with an integrated controller. Because of the declining presence of CDMA in general, and the reduced carrier and ecosystem footprint, AirWalk is near the bottom of the ranking.

Ericsson is at the bottom of the ranking, due to its unsuccessful efforts to generate interest among operators in its picocell solution. Ericsson has also been slow in developing its femtocell strategy, since the company believes this market is at the very early stages. Unless the femtocell market picks up, Ericsson is unlikely to make significant changes in its picocell roadmap.

Rankings



After individual scores are established for Innovation and Implementation using the above criteria, an overall company score is established using the Root Mean Square (RMS) method:




The resulting overall scores are then ranked and used for percentile comparisons.

The RMS method, in comparison with a straight summation or average of individual innovation and implementation values, rewards companies for standout performance.

For example, using this method a company with an innovation score of 9 and an implementation score of 1 would score considerably higher than a company with a score of 5 in both areas, despite the mean score being the same. ABI Research believes this is appropriate as the goal of these matrices is to highlight those companies that stand out from the others.