The summer of 2002 was the period when development of indoor devices for telecommunication carriers was gaining momentum. A number of innovative advancements in technology were needed to shift indoor devices for telecommunication carriers to the "full dissemination" phase. And keeping cost low was especially difficult compared to conventional VoIP gateway.

There were some projects that focused too much on cost that attention to technologies that differentiated our products from the rest was lost as a result. We placed emphasis on using our technologies for voice signal processing and packet processing. After careful examination, we found the ideal architecture that would be most successful in applying our belief from the various options that were available.

Innovation for smaller and cheaper products

During this process, we were under pressure of having to choose a certain key device. One was an innovative device with extremely low power consumption in a small package. The other had normal power consumption but had solid performance history in the market that guaranteed reliable operation. The prices presented by both device vendors were almost the same. The former showed potential for future technical advancements and was anticipated as the core device of a new platform of CPE for telecommunication carriers.

However, merits are always balanced out by demerits and I had an instinct that using this device would be risky. Although the latter was the least innovative in terms of technical breakthroughs, it provided stable performance at a reasonable cost. On the other hand, the price seemed to push the limit since it required cooling measures equivalent to conventional products on the device side.

Devices delivered to telecommunication carriers require near-perfect stability as infrastructure devices-absolutely no experimenting. In all honesty, I was not sure whether to bet my chances on the future by taking technical risks or to play it safe for the time being.

Drawn by merits and demerits

Concerning the former device, we decided to analyze the technical background supporting its innovative properties, and weigh it against the trade-off risks. This particular part vendor was based in the U.S. but was extremely honest in answering the questions we had. Maybe it was the agency that provided such excellent correspondence. But we were able to receive answers concerning the low power consumption and high voltage, details that led to the realization of a compact package, its structure, and technical issues that they paid particular attention to. The demerits we indicated as the trade-off were answered in a sincere manner based on facts without denial. We were visited by the company staff in the U.S. on a number of occasions and they were more than happy to discuss any matter we had in mind. And through such exchange, I started to feel a connection with the engineers.

My first instinct of the device being risky gradually faded as I began to understand the technical background and their peculiar attention to the technology. As a result, we became true fans through complete understanding of this device along with the demerits. Sure there were demerits, but they had something we did not. And we were able to compensate for the demerits. I came to believe that something good could be made. Despite the risks, my mind was set on using this part.