editor's blog
Subscribe Now

Sensor Fusion: DIY or Turnkey?

Sensor fusion was the name of the game this year at Sensors Expo (especially the MIG pre-conference event). But at least two of the visible players in this space are going about it two different ways.

We’ve seen Movea moving in a direction of giving control to system designers through tools. The idea here is that a system integrator will pull sensors together and assemble custom fusion algorithms from building blocks. Key to the success of this model is the assumption that system integrators want to do this work themselves.

By contrast, Sensor Platforms has a business model that reflects a different view: system houses don’t really want to be bothered with sensor fusion and would rather a company steeped in the technology do it for them. So rather than delivering DIY tools, Sensor Platforms delivers turnkey custom fusion that is then used as is. Which is partly why you might not see as much of their marketing; it’s less of a product push per se.

Which raises a very interesting question: Is one of these guys completely wrong? Or, perhaps, is this a market thing? And if it’s a market thing, how does it play? On the one hand, you might see big OEMs doing the turnkey approach. After all, a company that can deliver turnkey algorithms is going to be enticed by the promise of big companies, and, if it’s a small company, it may not have the resources to go after the little guys. (Or it may simply spurn the little guys as unworthy of their time… Not saying this specifically about Sensor Platforms, but I’ve seen it in other companies from the inside.) That would leave the DIY approach for the smaller folks.

On the other hand, small companies are less likely to have resources to be monkeying with sensor fusion algorithms, and they might feel their time would be better spent if someone else did that (assuming that those algorithms didn’t constitute core defensible value). Big companies, on the other hand, have oodles of top-level algorithm guys with not enough to do. [Ducks as the shoes come flying.] Realistically, if any company could do it themselves, it would be the big ones.

So this is a question for you: which is it?

–          DIY is the only worthy approach?

–          Turnkey is the only worthy approach?

–          They both have a place? If this, then how does it split

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Sep 28, 2023
See how we set (and meet) our GHG emission reduction goals with the help of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as we expand our sustainable energy use.The post Synopsys Smart Future: Our Climate Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions appeared first on Chip Des...
Sep 21, 2023
Not knowing all the stuff I don't know didn't come easy. I've had to read a lot of books to get where I am....

featured video

TDK PowerHap Piezo Actuators for Ideal Haptic Feedback

Sponsored by TDK

The PowerHap product line features high acceleration and large forces in a very compact design, coupled with a short response time. TDK’s piezo actuators also offers good sensing functionality by using the inverse piezo effect. Typical applications for the include automotive displays, smartphones and tablet.

Click here for more information about PowerHap Piezo Actuators

featured chalk talk

Challenges of Multi-Connectivity Asset Tracking
Multi-connectivity asset tracking is a critical element of our modern supply chain. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Colin Ramrattan and Manuel Cantone from STMicroelectronics and Amelia Dalton discuss the common needs required for asset tracking today, why low power processing is vital for these kind of applications, and how STMicroelectronics ASTRA platform can help you get started on your next asset tracking design.
Feb 20, 2023
27,170 views