Tried-and-True, Or Something New?
By Bob Hult, Bishop & Associates Inc.

Connector standards have disadvantages, but using one could help generate innovation elsewhere in the product design.

Electronic connectors conforming to a standard have been part of the product mix since the beginning of the electronics age. An industry accepted standard interface opens the market to multiple suppliers building equipment that can be assured of both mechanical, as well as electrical, compatibility. Proprietary interfaces can restrict the growth of a new class of products and increase design cost. Standard interfaces can speed the development cycle, insure compatibility, and greatly expand the potential market.

The development of the first electronic vacuum tubes necessitated the need for a uniform socket design that could accept a variety of tubes.

Suppliers, such as American Phenolic Corporation (now Amphenol), got its start by satisfying this emerging opportunity.

As electric ranges became popular, a need for a high-temperature disconnect to the heating element was required. One of the first products from Molex was a molded termination block, which quickly became the standard connection within the appliance industry.

Military applications require rugged connectors that perform in extreme environments. Detailed specifications that define every aspect of the connector design, from raw materials to performance testing, insure reliability and allow intermatability between equipment from a variety of manufacturers. In some cases, connectors designed to meet military standards evolved into commercial applications.

The RS-232 subminiature “D” connector started life as a Mil-C-24308, but morphed into a host of additional applications, including the common DB-9- and 25-position serial I/O interfaces found on many personal computers and peripherals.

Over the years, many new system standards have been written, which often define a specific connector. Standardized connectors can be the result of specifications created by formal standards groups such as IEEE, IEC, and VITA. These groups have been writing standards for many years and are recognized on a global basis. Additional standards are being written by industry-driven organizations, such as special interest groups (SIGs) or industry consortiums. They are often focused on a specific market segment such as computing or telecom, and may define both the physical architecture and signaling protocol. A third source of standard interfaces are those driven by a particular industry leader, such as Intel or IBM. Once selected by a major OEM, a connector may become a defacto standard and espoused by competitors, as well as peripheral suppliers, to insure compatibility.

In some cases, a standard may define both the connector as well as the signaling protocol, such as the universal serial bus, or USB. This serial interface offered a major reduction in both size and bandwidth over its predecessor, the subminiature-D, and now dominates digital I/O applications in a wide variety of applications. Some specifications, such as VME and those promoted by the PICMG special interest group, define the entire physical architecture of a system. Specifications, such as Advanced TCA, Advanced Mezzanine Card (AMC), and Micro TCA, define the card cage parameters, power supply, and daughtercard interfaces. The Server System Infrastructure (SSI) was an example of a standard driven by Intel, which defined server platforms and the connectors that distributed power internally. More recently, the PCI Express edge connector is rapidly penetrating the computer market segment.

Like almost everything in life, there are advantages as well as disadvantages to the selection of a connector defined by a standard. The decision by a connector manufacturer to produce a standard interface, or an OEM to utilize a standard, is complicated by a number of factors, both technical as well as logistical.

From the connector manufacturer’s perspective, the decision to tool a standard connector may begin with their participation on the standards committee charged with creating a new specification. Representatives of competitive suppliers may submit alternative designs which are reviewed by the full committee, comprised of representatives of potential users. In some cases, existing connectors may be considered, but often entirely new connectors must be designed to meet the specific requirements of the application. The potential conflict of interests within the group may result in a lengthy approval process.

Development work done on a new interface that is not selected can represent a significant drain on a supplier’s resources. Being the selected interface for a new standard does not guarantee market success. Development dollars spent to design and tool the Device Bay connector, for instance, could have been applied to a more successful new connector. The emergence of multiple standards for similar devices represents another risk factor. Connector manufacturers have the choice of tooling one or all three different sockets for secure digital, compact flash, and memory stick flash memory devices.

A connector selected as the standard must be available from multiple sources. Most standards groups require that the chosen supplier provide sufficient design detail to enable additional manufacturers to offer connectors that are both mechanically and electrically identical. The supplier must provide this data with a “reasonable and non-discriminatory” (RAND) license, to any competitor who chooses to participate in this market. Depending on the sophistication of the connector, anticipated market potential, as well as its stage in the product life-cycle, the developer of the connector may be reluctant to provide valuable intellectual property to anyone willing to pay for a license.

Being the first to offer a new interface to the market often brings price management advantages and visibility to those suppliers. The adoption of a connector can result in the rapid development of a large market for the interface, making the decision on where to place limited tooling investments easier. On the other hand, a widely accepted standard interface will attract many competitors, which may result in it becoming a commodity product, driving both price and profitability down. Anticipating rapid price erosion, new connectors are often designed in the United States, but are immediately production-tooled in Asia to take advantage of lower assembly costs.

Promotion of the connector becomes easier as publicity surrounding the standard assures broad utilization of the defined interface. With the selected interface in the marketplace, competitors can observe user reactions to the product and are allowed the time to bring innovation and improvements to their subsequent offerings. A standardized connector that is easier to terminate, consumes less PCB space, or offers reduced insertion forces, can quickly capture market share from the originator.

From a system designer’s perspective, the decision to utilize a standard—be it an individual interface or entire platform—creates both advantages and challenges. External I/O connectors that are defined by a standard assure physical intermatability among related products. Specifications, such as USB, Firewire, and Fiber Channel, define both the physical and electrical characteristics of the interface. Other standards, such as Compact PCI and Micro TCA, offer a complete mechanical platform, freeing the designer to focus on software and other features that allow product differentiation. Established standards have spawned the development of reference designs that guarantee signal integrity and performance conformity to the specification. These features can be a major incentive, particularly to smaller companies with limited design resources or advanced test equipment. As signal speeds approach 10Gb/s and beyond, access to proven reference designs can reduce the cost of new product development, as well as time to market.

Selection of a standard connector supplied by multiple manufacturers assures not only a low market price, but also guaranteed delivery, on a global basis. Both are critical factors in the highly-competitive electronic marketplace.

One complaint users have lodged against standards is that the number of years spent in the approval process and adoption of a standard may cause equipment to quickly become obsolete. Use of a standard may limit the ability to utilize cutting-edge technology, which typically is not addressed by an approved standard. In some markets, such as industrial control applications, where interoperability among many individual components is critical and technology evolves at a relatively slow pace, this is not a problem. Other applications, such as high-speed computing and network controllers, technical advances can spell the difference between success and failure of a new product. In order to address this concern, some standards continue to evolve as application requirements become more advanced. The continuing development of IEEE 802.3 Ethernet is an example of a Local Area Network standard that was originally developed in the 1970s and continues to be re-invented to address emerging high-performance applications. The standards creation cycle has been significantly shortened as industry-driven organizations, such as PICMG, have streamlined the approval process.

Some equipment suppliers have traditionally built equipment using proprietary designs, not only to maximize the performance of the product, but also to retain sales of upgrades and repairs. Systems built to a standard often stimulate the development of a secondary market for plug-compatible components. Daughtercards from after-market suppliers may offer advanced features or a lower price, and can drain margin from the OEM. By maintaining proprietary interfaces, both valuable IP and aftermarket profit can be maintained. Systems designed around custom card sizes, signaling protocols, and electrical interfaces often do not represent sufficient market volume to encourage third party components.

Industry-accepted interface and system standards offer both the connector manufacturer and the electronic system designer a mixed bag of advantages and challenges. A careful consideration of the specifics associated with each opportunity and a thorough understanding of the alternatives can result in a balance that achieves the objectives for each new product.

Bishop & Associated Comments

•  Standards have been an integral part of the electronic connector market for many years, and offer advantages that can be very attractive for new system design.

•  Connector manufacturers can take advantage of potentially large and quickly developing markets, minimizing risk in their new product tooling decisions.

•  Standardized connectors require the loss of valuable IP, and often result in the product becoming a commodity, limiting profit margin. Being the first on the market with a standard connector may allow a competitor to study customer experience and offer an improved product, capturing greater market share.

•  Designers who chose to utilize a standard interface or system platform can dramatically reduce scarce engineering resources and subsequent time to market.

•  Reference designs, available from semiconductor and connector manufacturers, can insure high-performance as well as interoperability among products conforming to a specification.

•  The relatively long standards approval process can limit the utilization of advanced technology, reducing competitiveness as well as shortening the product life cycle. This concern is highly related to the nature of each industry segment.

New systems based on industry standards appear to be increasing. This seems to indicate that the problems associated with standardized designs are being overcome as competitive pressures to reduce price and time to market continue to drive the market.

Robert Hult
Director of Product Technology, Bishop & Associates, Inc.
Robert Hult has been in the connector industry for over 36 years. Hult began his career as a sales engineer for Amphenol. He joined AMP in 1972 and served in several management positions through 1996. In 1997, Hult joined Foxconn as group marketing manager for Intel, Chandler, Arizona, U.S.A. Prior to joining Bishop & Associates, Hult was the regional application engineering manager for Tyco Electronics.

Hult graduated in 1968 from Bradley University with a Bachelor of Science degree in electronics technology and a minor in business.