Wearables, IoT and why no one is getting the point.
The problem with wearable tech and IoT talk is that the big players right now keep looking at devices in these segments as potentially huge things which they can use to tie users into their ecosystems.
And while we may one day see a new class of device which COULD be that sort of thing, nothing categorized as wearable or an IoT device meets the bill today.
This is why I've said continually that smart watches need to be completely platform agnostic. In fact, ideally, they would be at least largely functional as standalone devices. Trying to lock the device to an ecosystem only works if the market for the device is large enough and you already own a majority of the ecosystem you're trying to tie that device down too. On that first point, we haven't yet seen such a device and on the second point, only Google has a large enough market if the device anchoring you to an ecosystem is an Android phone. But, as stated, it isn't really relevant that Google has a massive majority of the smartphone industry, the wearables industry isn't big enough to sustain Android only products.
And beyond watches, markets tend to get even smaller.
Unless there is an upset in the IoT market, I think that the next big device class will be smart home devices. I don't think direct consumer purchases will be responsible for the boom though. Smart homes have similar advantages as smart phones. If you can get contracts with home contractors, you can get them pre-installed in new houses and the cost is hidden from the consumers. Similar to the way subsidies with contracts "hide" the real cost of the phone from the consumer.
But even there, you still need to be platform agnostic or have a tertiary device for interacting with the system. Home owners can't really afford to lose a deal because the user doesn't have the "right" smartphone for their house. And a house is a long term investment and buyers might not even want the home if the system is compatible with their current phone. A tertiary device might be a smart key/FoB and/or console which is what you'll probably see combined with sensors. And then if you happen to have a compatible smartphone you could open up more functionality.
What makes the smart house more viable than something like a smart watch is ubiquity and hiding the cost. Anyone looking at wearables likely lives somewhere and as long as it isn't a line item on the bill people most people don't see the cost and so it doesn't bug them.
New ways of subsidizing IoT devices could also change the landscape. Or if a smart version of something fairly common is released at a negligible price delta to its non-smart counter parts, it could also circumvent the need for something like a smart home to jump start the IoT segment.
The problem with watches is that not many people where them to begin with, and you can find A watch for dirt cheap ($5-10) and a decent one for $50-100. Sure, nicer watches can cost several times more than a smart watch, but then, they aren't going after the typical consumer market. With most decent smart watches starting in $200+ range and being a smart version of a product which most people don't seem to use any more, it isn't surprising that no one is really making off like a bandit here.
The other problem smart device have is that they typically lack a series of "hubs" to interact with. Smart watches pretty just talk to a phone. And most people bring their phones to the same places they bring their watches and there isn't really anything most smart watches can do which a phone can't. And more important, the combination of the two does little to enrich the experience of either. A smart home is a true interactive hub for other smart devices. It opens up much more fantastical possibilities and reasons to buy other smart devices.
There is no reason that with a smart phone and smart home that your phone can't become a key and turn on and off lights in rooms based on time of day and which room you are in. Add in a smart watch and your watch can notify you when you left your phone in the house or vice versa. Your phone can provide a link to your home security system so that you can monitor your house while you're away. Instead of audible alarms you can set alarms that open the blinds and play soft music instead. When your wife's phone enters the house you can get a notification that she's home. Or know that your kids stepped out in the middle of the night.
The list goes on. And you can probably think of any number of other ways those devices could interact. And many of these scenarios exist today with certain vendors. You can probably also think of other smart devices that exist or could exist that could interact within this ecosystem. Like a heart rate monitor that can use your phone to call for help if it detects you're having heart problems or experienced a sudden fall. A car on such a network could know that its cold outside and that you plan to leave for work in 5 minutes and should probably turn itself on to start warming up. Smart windows could open if they detected that the conditions outside are sufficient that you don't need to run the heat or AC. A car itself could be another "hub" with its own set of interactions with different types of smart devices.
The point of the article isn't to dream about a magical future. It is to illustrate the problem with the current approach the big players tend to be taking. The market for your typical individual smart device will never be as large as the market for smartphones. So tying a device to a smartphone ecosystem instantly means you'll have substantially fewer users of that smart device than you do for your smartphone platform. Also, because the individual devices will tend to appeal to smaller niches, they aren't really going to work as a means of locking users into your platform. The best bet is to work with open standards and try and ensure that your platform enables the best interactions between devices regardless of who made them. You then pull people in by extending those standards and being the first to implement new interactions.
An Apple Watch that only works with the iPhone 6 and greater is a doomed product. I not only don't want my watch tied to an iPhone purchase, I also don't want to be told what phones I can buy. And that is the nature of the IoT market.
And while we may one day see a new class of device which COULD be that sort of thing, nothing categorized as wearable or an IoT device meets the bill today.
This is why I've said continually that smart watches need to be completely platform agnostic. In fact, ideally, they would be at least largely functional as standalone devices. Trying to lock the device to an ecosystem only works if the market for the device is large enough and you already own a majority of the ecosystem you're trying to tie that device down too. On that first point, we haven't yet seen such a device and on the second point, only Google has a large enough market if the device anchoring you to an ecosystem is an Android phone. But, as stated, it isn't really relevant that Google has a massive majority of the smartphone industry, the wearables industry isn't big enough to sustain Android only products.
And beyond watches, markets tend to get even smaller.
Unless there is an upset in the IoT market, I think that the next big device class will be smart home devices. I don't think direct consumer purchases will be responsible for the boom though. Smart homes have similar advantages as smart phones. If you can get contracts with home contractors, you can get them pre-installed in new houses and the cost is hidden from the consumers. Similar to the way subsidies with contracts "hide" the real cost of the phone from the consumer.
But even there, you still need to be platform agnostic or have a tertiary device for interacting with the system. Home owners can't really afford to lose a deal because the user doesn't have the "right" smartphone for their house. And a house is a long term investment and buyers might not even want the home if the system is compatible with their current phone. A tertiary device might be a smart key/FoB and/or console which is what you'll probably see combined with sensors. And then if you happen to have a compatible smartphone you could open up more functionality.
What makes the smart house more viable than something like a smart watch is ubiquity and hiding the cost. Anyone looking at wearables likely lives somewhere and as long as it isn't a line item on the bill people most people don't see the cost and so it doesn't bug them.
New ways of subsidizing IoT devices could also change the landscape. Or if a smart version of something fairly common is released at a negligible price delta to its non-smart counter parts, it could also circumvent the need for something like a smart home to jump start the IoT segment.
The problem with watches is that not many people where them to begin with, and you can find A watch for dirt cheap ($5-10) and a decent one for $50-100. Sure, nicer watches can cost several times more than a smart watch, but then, they aren't going after the typical consumer market. With most decent smart watches starting in $200+ range and being a smart version of a product which most people don't seem to use any more, it isn't surprising that no one is really making off like a bandit here.
The other problem smart device have is that they typically lack a series of "hubs" to interact with. Smart watches pretty just talk to a phone. And most people bring their phones to the same places they bring their watches and there isn't really anything most smart watches can do which a phone can't. And more important, the combination of the two does little to enrich the experience of either. A smart home is a true interactive hub for other smart devices. It opens up much more fantastical possibilities and reasons to buy other smart devices.
There is no reason that with a smart phone and smart home that your phone can't become a key and turn on and off lights in rooms based on time of day and which room you are in. Add in a smart watch and your watch can notify you when you left your phone in the house or vice versa. Your phone can provide a link to your home security system so that you can monitor your house while you're away. Instead of audible alarms you can set alarms that open the blinds and play soft music instead. When your wife's phone enters the house you can get a notification that she's home. Or know that your kids stepped out in the middle of the night.
The list goes on. And you can probably think of any number of other ways those devices could interact. And many of these scenarios exist today with certain vendors. You can probably also think of other smart devices that exist or could exist that could interact within this ecosystem. Like a heart rate monitor that can use your phone to call for help if it detects you're having heart problems or experienced a sudden fall. A car on such a network could know that its cold outside and that you plan to leave for work in 5 minutes and should probably turn itself on to start warming up. Smart windows could open if they detected that the conditions outside are sufficient that you don't need to run the heat or AC. A car itself could be another "hub" with its own set of interactions with different types of smart devices.
The point of the article isn't to dream about a magical future. It is to illustrate the problem with the current approach the big players tend to be taking. The market for your typical individual smart device will never be as large as the market for smartphones. So tying a device to a smartphone ecosystem instantly means you'll have substantially fewer users of that smart device than you do for your smartphone platform. Also, because the individual devices will tend to appeal to smaller niches, they aren't really going to work as a means of locking users into your platform. The best bet is to work with open standards and try and ensure that your platform enables the best interactions between devices regardless of who made them. You then pull people in by extending those standards and being the first to implement new interactions.
An Apple Watch that only works with the iPhone 6 and greater is a doomed product. I not only don't want my watch tied to an iPhone purchase, I also don't want to be told what phones I can buy. And that is the nature of the IoT market.
Comments
Post a Comment