HomeRF started off with a bang. It was a technology filling an identified need, says Wayne Caswell, the former HomeRF communications chair. Companies invested in research to understand home networking and then developed the technology to address the need. HomeRF had many promising characteristics. Its MAC (medium access controller) layer divided available time between data traffic and voice traffic. And, its encryption capabilities for security were superior to other technologies. The technology appeared to be a perfect match for applications such as streaming music.

But unlike open-standard technologies such as IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth, HomeRF suffered greatly from its lack of an open specification. "It's a super technology, but even universities that wanted access to the specs for teaching had to sign nondisclosure agreements," says Caswell.

In the neck and neck race between HomeRF and Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi simply had more advantages. It was based on an open standard, and with strong support in the marketplace, Wi-Fi was able to break the consumer cost barrier with products under $100. Most of all, Wi-Fi benefited from a strong marketing strategy that ensured its visibility and its compatibility with other technologies.

The demise of HomeRF also points out some of the risks for companies who get behind a technology early. A two-year delay in allowing frequency hopping in the 2.4 GHz band hurt HomeRF. One by one, early supporters did not renew their promoter memberships. Early supporters of the technology included Siemens, Intel, Compaq, Proxim, IBM, and Motorola. Siemens was key in helping HomeRF become a global standard. It is unlikely that any HomeRF products will ever come to market, says Caswell. Because the specifications are not in the public domain, it cannot be merged with other technologies such as ultra-wide-band (802.15.3). "There are certainly some gems in the HomeRF spec that someone should tap into," he says. Perhaps a university will grab it and the technology will be resurrected in a chipset someday, but Caswell says he thinks the HomeRF brand itself is dead.

It is a good time to reflect on the impact a failed technology has on the innovative companies that put their reputations on the line. When a highly promising technology dies, these companies risk more than lost market share. They risk the value of their stock and their future viability. Caswell notes that such failures certainly raise the philosophical issue of whether it's better business for a company to invest early in a technology or whether it should just wait for the "standard du jour."