Google’s presence in the graphic above is only an indication of its IoT strategy, and I’d think that Android might be a great thread to connect it all together in the short run. Two words – Google Now. There’s been a lot of talk recently about Google losing its prime position. (example) Stagnating search advertising growth, Facebook’s strong showing in mobile advertising, Apple’s profitability from devices etc being the reasons. I am wondering if IoT will be a key to Google’s renaissance. (along with AI) Our interactions with the connected devices will result in a treasure trove of ‘intimate’ data that can be used for some excellent targeted advertising. Given its play in multiple verticals, Google will be in a great place to access the data. Arguably Glass was their big play at hardware beyond mobile. In any case, that didn’t seem to work. Yet. But with Nest, Dropcam and beyond (check out the patents including a smart doorknob!) Google does have quite some ammunition.

Samsung states that by 2020 all of the devices it sells will be connected to the IoT. For now, SmartThings, their recent acquisition, will serve as the connection between devices. (via) Apple, with HomeKit, is poised to become a key player as well. Quite possible that the combination of Apple Watch, Beacons and Apple Pay will bring in a completely new play on IoT. Even Amazon’s Echo is in the game. (read)

In the near and medium time frame, one of the things that I think will play a key role in converting the IoT into a WoT is the mobile device, mostly thanks to them being the common interface. The guys whom I’ve seen doing a great job with that right now is Xiaomi. The entire strategy seems to be use the very economical smartphone as the central device in their IoT plans. Recently they released a Smart Home Suite with four components –  a human motion sensor, a couple of door and window sensors and a wireless switching device for controlling appliances. They already have a connected air purifier and a bulb. (via) TVs and water purifiers are on their way. [Incidentally, they are not the only Chinese brands in the IoT game]

As is evident, there are many companies creating their own navigation paths in the IoT ecosystem. Hardware, software, infrastructure, services, consumer identities and how it can all be made to work together. To me, this is looking to be a play even more significant than the web was. That makes it a very interesting battle indeed.

P.S. For some hilarious IoT ideas, check The Internet of Useless Things

In my earlier post (linked above) I had pointed to the distinction between the Internet of Things and the Web of Things. What was then a nuance seems much more wider now and is even more relevant. Another article on TC, titled The Problem with the Internet of Things is actually about this. One of the products that has fascinated me for a while is Mother, from Sen.se. To me, it aims to solve this problem, and the last two points in their ‘Creating the Internet of Life’ document is proof of it. (Like wearables in 2014, I plan to get a consumer IoT experience in 2015, and this is most likely going to be my preference) Another simplistic but potentially very useful product I have seen is Flic. The last example is Signul, which uses a beacon system to automate things used in daily lives. (both on Indiegogo)

Broadly, the commonality is that the focus shifts from a remote or a device that collects data to one that integrates well into daily lives and makes life easier. In other words, an application layer that will have better (automated) means to sense, collect data  and convert it into use cases, and that is what will should dictate the next phase of growth for ‘things’. I, for one, am convinced that along with 3D printing, this will alter the system of the world. I also see this as an opportunity for brands – another technological phenomenon that can help add a unique layer to the overall offering, using both data and/or context.  For example, imagine a DTH provider creating something like KipstR. (wearables + ‘things’, do check it out) This obviously means building enough trust and value with/for users for them to be comfortable with the privacy trade-offs. It remains to be seen how many brands ‘thing’ through it, and how.

Why I think it matters: Though nowhere remotely close to Chris Dancy levels, I have been interested in this for a while. As I mentioned in my Personal API post, I see it as an evolution of my lifelogging pursuit – from logging in experiences to sensors automatically picking up data – and something that is highly relevant to my area of work – brands. In the big picture, I also see this domain as a key player in the evolution of our species – from our persistent movement towards immortality (physical) as well as, what I hope will be, a more gradual steps towards mindfulness. (mental, emotional)

What is it? Smartwatches are just the beginning, and at a broad level, wearables can already be categorised into

• Health : From standard activity trackers like Nike’s recently abandoned Fuelband to cancer detecting bras, they measure heartbeat, sleep patterns, calories burnt and so on)
• Personal Devices : From Sony’s Smart Watch, among others to Google Glass, it does everything from being a personal planner to giving contextually relevant information, to augmented reality and more.
• Others: In this, I include everything from security (eg. Nymi for authentication,  the NFC ring) to fashion (eg. colour changing raincoats, and keyboard jeans to more e-textiles) to specific applications (sports eg. ShotTracker; context specific: hotel bracelets) gaming and so on, until things that make life easier. (eg. Fin)
• ‘Bearables‘: Wearables inside the body – devices embedded in the skin or ingested for enhanced biometric tracking (read for more)

(Some statistics, a primer, and a good classification to broaden your perspectives)

Where is all this going? For the scope of this post, let’s briefly look at the impact/deliverables from three points of view

Consumer: There are quite a number of views (read concerns) that wearables are probably the first step towards turning us into cyborgs. (what I refer to as the augmented human here) There is another line of thought that wonders if all of this is taking us closer to ‘sofalarity‘. I can argue the Hug Shirt both ways! I wonder if, as we race towards singularity, there is an unconscious adaptation that our species is going through to survive, or continue to thrive. Personally, I like to think that technology is giving me the means to first quantify, and then use that data (converted to information and then to insights) to consistently work towards being a better human. ( a qualified self, so to speak)  I have already taken the first step with Goqii. While there is no dearth of trackers, I found their ecosystem approach interesting. I also envision creation of personal APIs becoming easier in the next few years, allowing us to store, analyse and transmit data and information to others.

Ecosystem: At one level, there is going to be some effort in making wearables really mainstream. There is definitely going to be resistance. The answer, as always, is in using wearables as a means to address human needs. On another level, while devices are expanding in scope, quality and sheer numbers, as Chris Dancy mentions in the interview (linked earlier) interoperability is still a concern. (just as in the case of IoT) It’s not just wearables talking to each other, but talking to a larger universe of the IoT.

Brands: This domain has seen its share of brands – standalone ones as well as majors like Apple, Google and Samsung who want in on the action. There are fashion brands too, and I can imagine a near future when technology will be a hygiene factor in many kinds of apparel. While this happens on the device side, the data generated finds application across spheres – think, for example, how this can be applied in the health domain, (from medication to insurance) employment, sports and so on. Thus, there are many roles for brands – a standalone device and ecosystem with minimum connectivity, or devices and/or ecosystems that work in a complementary manner with another set and provide a product/service. As privacy concerns escalate, I believe the role of the consumer will be the key one to watch. This is the opportunity for brands to connect its business purpose to the consumer’s narrative. Brands should work towards gaining the trust of consumers early on and create seamless platforms for connecting devices, data, and users, working towards a common shared purpose.

(via)

From not believing that the world needed more than five computers (1943), we have reached more than 1.8 billion smartphones (source) that arguably do more than what a ‘computer’ can. So, a wearable (or a set of them) soon superseding a mobile is very much in the realms of possibility. As functions evolve, form factors will change – that’s inevitable, and on shorter cycles. The last decade in particular  has seen a massive technological evolution, but I think this is just the beginning – we’re at the cusp of a sea change in the way we live and work – about to push beyond the known boundaries of the body and mind. In the context of this evolution, Carl Jung’s profound statement would be a good one to remember – “Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens.”

until next time, wearabouts!

P.S.  If the subject interest you, do follow my Techsessories and Health boards

P.P.S. Need a #lulz worthy wearable strategy – Check this out!

This post is about the second. So, what is the Internet of things? The wiki definition is simple, but effective –  “The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to uniquely identifiable objects and their virtual representations in an Internet-like structure.” The best primer I have come across would be this infographic, which has everything from a quick technology explanation, applications and challenges to market size, statistics, and interesting use cases. For a really solid perspective, look no further than this deck titled ‘The Internet of Everything‘.

How does it affect us? For now, it is about convenience. If you’re familiar with Android launchers, imagine an IoT version – it’s almost there, using iBeacon! There’s more – Piper, which works as an IFTTT for your home, the smart fridge that can order groceries from the online store, the smart TV that can learn preferences and help us discover content, the washing machine that can help order detergent, the egg tray that will let you know about the number of eggs it holds and their ‘state’, the automated coffee machine, Philips’ connected retail lighting system, Pixie Scientific’s Smart Diapers, the GE a/c that learns your preferences, the smart bulb that doubles up as a bluetooth speaker, (!) and so on. Some of the products are really useful and solve a need, while some others are more fads and probably not adding the value that reflects the potential of IoT. But that’s just the learning curve in progress, as the market starts separating needs and wants.

All of this also means that consumption patterns will begin to change, as more purchases become automated, and more importantly data-driven. In my post on the driving forces of 2014, I had brought up technology as the biggest disruption that marketing has seen. This is most definitely one of the manifestations.

What can brands do? For starters, get interested. Think about the tangible benefits that can be offered to consumers. What are the kind of data patterns that devices (or products) can surface to help the consumer make better consumption decisions? What kind of contexts can be relevant? Instead of force feeding advertising on traditional channels and fracking social platforms, can communication to consumers be made seamless using data, contexts and easy processes? While ‘device’ brands might have an initial advantage, ‘product’ brands need not be left behind at all. As the washing machine post (linked earlier) suggests, a Unilever or P&G might subsidise a machine, because it’s pre-sold with 500 washes worth of their detergent. It could even be real time, with SDK, API systems telling a partner brand to push a contextually relevant communication to a consumer. As things start storing and communicating data, privacy will be a major factor that decides whom consumers will share what with. Unlike media, trust cannot be ‘fracked’, it needs to be earned over a time frame.

Where does it go from here? A common language/protocol/registry is a good start, as is a white label platform – both are trying to connect an assortment of devices and gadgets. While there is value in data at an individual level (more on that in the next narrative) one of the critical factors in the success of this phenomenon is the devices talking to each other – humans acting as middle men to pass on data may not be a smart way ahead!  Digital Tonto has an excellent nuanced perspective that differentiates IoT from the web of things. (WoT sounds cooler!) The difference is in connection and interoperability.

Equally important is this phenomenon’s ability to solve human needs. (Internet of Caring Things)

Collaborative consumption is fast becoming a consumer reality. As always, brands (generalising) are bound to be a few years behind, but the hope is that the web of things will force them to start collaborative creation and distribution and more importantly, focus on consumer needs.

until next time, #WoTever

P.S. In a corruption of Scott Adams’  idea, I think #WoT is paving the way for robot domination.

P.P.S. If the subject interests you, check out my Internet of Things Pinterest board.