What Analysts Do
The tests I recently ran illustrated, to me, anyway, that the so-called “draft n” 802.11 products I tested didn’t perform as well as at least one non-draft-complaint MIMO-based product that’s been on the market for a while. (See Draft What?) They also gave me the opportunity to rant once again against the whole “draft n” concept, which I consider to be misleading at best and otherwise just plain wrong. I think I’ve explained my reasoning in the statements in the report, and I won’t cover all that again here. Anyway, that’s analysis.
But I do, sadly, need to state here unequivocally that the opinions in anything I publish are mine and mine alone. No ethical analyst (read: no analyst worthy of being one) would tailor results from experiments in any way that deviates from the reality revealed in a given benchmark or other quantifiable exercise (i.e., the truth). I occasionally read about scientific fraud in a variety of fields. One example of years ago hit very close to home. A doctor who treated me in high school, a world-famous dermatologist, claimed to have solved the rejection problem in skin transplants, using mice, anyway. What he did, though, was to paint a black patch on a white mouse using a magic marker. Pretty stupid, huh? Especially for an otherwise smart guy (I hope so, anyway, said the patient).
As you’ve seen, I carefully document the test conditions and results of any benchmark project, and use techniques like turntables and spectrum analyzers that other people usually don’t. I welcome criticism of the process and the results, and will provide assistance at no charge to anyone attempting similar tests. But I will not put up with sour-grapes criticism of my motivations or ethics, at least not without proof. No ethical person would.
— Craig Mathias is Principal Analyst at the Farpoint Group , an advisory firm specializing in wireless communications and mobile computing. Special to Unstrung