Is Sigfox on the Run?

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

Page 1 / 2 > >>

FUWAH 7/21/2016 | 2:38:32 PM

Story Content I agree with the authors post and defense of the story content and approach. I, for one, are following the development of each network rollouts and follow a large and quite informative take on each company and its emerging business models.

I saw no false statements here. factual commentary was put forth. Sigfox, Ingenu, LORA... they are all "pontificating" how wonderful they are and how their companies are going to be the emerging winner...sticking their chests out and roaring...

Each company out there, eventually is most likely eying an IPO... they all must watch what comes out of their mouths, if they release inaccurate or bloated forecasted information, it is the "american way" to call them into the arena with a factually based counter points......

To all of them (Sigfox-Ingenu-LORA,) if your goal is IPO...your ultimate stock and equity investors will call you out, and won't be as nice about it as Light Reading is here... to Sigfox.. get a thick skin....its only going to get worse if you don't perform to your forecasts or to the levels of reliability that is being sold into the field...

Wild West Syle Blanket Coverage Forecast and Reliability Newsreleases ultimately hit the wall if you cannot back them up to investors and customers...

Europe or US...

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

iainmorris 7/21/2016 | 11:46:46 AM

Re: LP WAN Thank you for your interest in Light Reading.

We are an independent organization and as such do not have any vested interests in specific technologies. We simply comment on the trends we see and raise questions where there are questions to be asked. We certainly do not have a "bee in our bonnet" about Sigfox, and we have nowhere suggested that Sigfox technology is an outright failure. But there are clearly some concerns as to whether that technology can become a global force.

The accusations that this story is groundless and somehow cobbled together on a whim are clearly without merit. This and previous stories are based on lengthy discussions with analysts, other companies in the LPWA market and Sigfox itself, as well as input from a Sigfox customer. All of those are cited in the coverage. We have also made efforts to contact other companies working with Sigfox -- at Sigfox's own suggestion, in fact -- but have yet to hear back from the organizations approached, as noted in the article. We are open to having discussions with any customer of Sigfox that has a positive story to tell.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Fulkrum90 7/21/2016 | 7:15:33 AM

LP WAN This is not the first time I have seen very negative articles about SIGFOX. All the previous articles were ill informed, poorly written, incorrectly investigated and unvalidated. Funnily enough all written by the same guy.

I would like to know why this guy has such a bee in his bonnet bout SIGFOX.

As a system integrator tasked with finding solutions to headaches. Customers dont give a damn what flavour technology it is. They have a headache and will pay to get rid of it. They dont want to hear about how we do it. As SIGFOX is the only commercial LP WA network here in Ireland then I will be using it. Cheap product, cheap solution. Very happy customer. Nothing else matters.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

FUWAH 7/20/2016 | 10:28:09 AM

Unimpressed with US Sigfox Rollout Generally, the US (North American) rollout of deployed based stations and promised network capabilities thus far appears to have been unimpressive, and significantly below expectations and newsreleased statements from the company.

San Francisco and NYC aside, announcements promising 10 cities, and 100 cities deployed and covered by 2016 will completely fall short as the company is deep into Q3 and have not announced any further cities or confirmed the achivement goals set forth as forecasted.

Time will tell. End of Quarter, and End of Year goals and excpected reporting results to investors cannot be overstated when the proof ultimately hits the reporting spreadsheet reality that most likely is forthcoming.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

FabienPG12 7/18/2016 | 8:48:45 AM

Tweet Tweet When you see the LoRa Alliance and Senet tweeting out this article, their true colors shine through. All this petty stuff won't even rise to the level of a footnote once LTE-M1 and NB-IOT gain momentum.

https://twitter.com/Brad_W_Martin/status/754350411088297984

The LoRa Alliance, Sigfox, Senet, etc. should pivot now, like Actility has. No one will be able to say they didn't see it coming.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

CTOandBu53037 7/18/2016 | 5:07:44 AM

In two words: Sigfox works I've just seen this article over Linkedin and I had to setup an account just to comment about how biased against Sigfox this text is. I've been personally working with Sigfox since 2013 as CTO in an IoT device developper company and I can only talk you from the perspective of my own experience, and today Sigfox is the only IoT technology seamlessly running out of the box with quite a great coverage quality.

Yes, we do know that in low network densified areas, driving at high speeds, Sigfox is not the most convenient technology, but we're talking here of what, 1% of the potential use cases? even less that than I think. We have shipped Sigfox enabled devices to more that 10 countries in 4 continents and all of them worked as the got them out of the box. We've installed devices in trees, lamps, containers, underground, farms, annimals, ships... and everytime we had a flawless behavior.

I've been reading about LoRa for a long time. We know it, and we do have a base station and a few modules as it seemed that the big LoRa boom was around the corner, but till now requests about LoRa enabled products is far less that Sigfox ones, this is a fact. Of course LoRa has some advantages over Sigfox, as Sigfox has over LoRa, but this is not only a competition about technical details. It is in part, and the stakes are high, and there's a lot of discussion about this, but it's also about user experience, coverage, readiness... and Sigfox is winning in all these areas.

I find the article quite agressive against Sigfox. All technologies have their flaws, but this article is only focusing on one side flaws!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

kjsing 7/16/2016 | 9:36:52 AM

Cost disparity Does the cost comparison mentioned in the article include network subscription or is it just the node cost? A 10x cost difference over the next 5 years seems excessively high for NB-IoT to make a real impact. Especially if you start to multiply it by the millions. This leaves a lot of room open for investors to boost cheaper alternatives.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

brooks7 7/15/2016 | 5:14:09 PM

Re: Geography Carol,

I thought of Wimax but the big issue always is that network building is a massively capital intensive business. If you are going to invest in a technology, it better be something you are sure about.

seven

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

cnwedit 7/15/2016 | 2:34:11 PM

Re: Geography This reminds me a bit of what Clearwire was doing with WiMAX - they were a bit ahead of the market but not early enough to gain momentum, ahead of WiFi and LTE.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

inkstainedwretch 7/15/2016 | 1:18:32 PM

Geography Mari is spot on.

Also, SigFox's other challenge is geographical. It's choices are a) blanket vast areas so that it can attract customers by boasting about its coverage, which requires capex that might never lead to adequate ROI, b) try to attract customers and then provide coverage for their needs, which is risky because without a steady influx of customers it will fail to gain critical mass, or c) try to do both, potentially compounding the risks of a) and b).

--Brian Santo

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Page 1 / 2 > >>