Fraudulent Power Claims in STM32WB55 Wireless SoC

[asdemirli]

Dear STMicroelectronics Team,
I am writing to strongly condemn the way power consumption values are presented in the STM32WB55 datasheet.
When I choose a wireless SoC, I do so because of its wireless capabilities. If I only needed a microcontroller, I would simply buy an MCU from your STM32 families. The reason I selected WB55 was specifically for its BLE functionality. Therefore, the datasheet must provide power consumption values with BLE active, not just MCU Stop mode currents with BLE disabled.
Presenting only the MCU’s low‑power figures while omitting the real BLE consumption is misleading and deceptive. It creates false expectations for developers and leads to serious disappointment in real‑world applications. This practice can only be described as fraudulent.
I strongly denounce this approach. Wireless SoCs must be documented transparently, with accurate BLE advertising and connection current profiles. Competing vendors such as Nordic and Telink provide this clarity, and ST should do the same if you want developers to trust your wireless portfolio.
I urge you to revise your documentation and stop presenting wireless SoCs as if they were just MCUs. Anything less is unacceptable.

[TDK · Accepted solution]

The datasheet lists power consumption when BLE is active under various scenarios and power conditions.

[asdemirli]

Dear ST Community,
I would like to sincerely apologize for my earlier statements regarding the STM32WB55 power consumption behavior. In my initial analysis, I claimed that the device could not realistically reach microampere levels in BLE scenarios. After further optimization and correct configuration, I have successfully measured 22 µA in low‑power operation, which proves that my earlier conclusion was inaccurate.
My mistake was assuming that CubeMX alone would handle all low‑power integration automatically. In reality, additional configuration and careful tuning are required to achieve the advertised ultra‑low power figures. I should have acknowledged this complexity instead of presenting my doubts as definitive.
I apologize both to the ST team and to fellow developers in this forum for any confusion or discouragement my comments may have caused. Transparency and accuracy are essential in our community, and I will be more careful in the future to distinguish between personal measurement challenges and actual device limitations.