January 8, 2015
Nearly 70 percent to own in-home IoT device by 2019
Through a special arrangement, presented here for discussion is a summary of a current article from Retail TouchPoints.
With many such items hyped at the Consumer Electronics Show that wraps up Friday in Las Vegas, Acquity Group recently issued a report predicting that 69 percent of consumers plan to buy a connected home IoT device by 2019. Currently, only four percent own such as device.
The report, The Internet Of Things: The Future Of Consumer Adoption, was based on a survey of more than 2,000 consumers across the U.S.
The survey also predicts that acceptance and overall adoption of wearable technology will consistently trend upwards over the next few years. The total number of people who own a piece of wearable technology is expected to double from seven percent to 14 percent by the end of 2015. Adoption is expected to reach 28 percent by the end of 2016.
Wearable fitness devices will play a key role in this adoption spurt. By 2015, 22 percent of consumers will either have or will plan to purchase a wearable fitness device. Smart watches are the second most popular wearable, with five percent of consumers looking to purchase one within the next year.
Despite the proliferation of IoT devices, a wide majority of consumers (87 percent) do not understand what IoT actually means. As many as 64 percent of consumers have not purchased a connected home IoT device because they are unaware the technology is available; 40 percent of respondents also don’t know wearable technology is available.
Beyond a lack of awareness, respondents had several issues with in-home IoT devices and wearable technology, including a lack of perceived value, privacy concerns, and price concerns.
Younger consumers, however, are more likely to adopt connected technologies in the future. More than half (53 percent) of Millennials 18 to 25 years old plan to purchase an in-home IoT technology device by 2019, compared to 32 percent of Baby Boomers who are 45 years and older.
Among genders, men (16 percent) are more likely than women (10 percent) to own or purchase an IoT in-home device by 2015.
The U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts, the semi-annual industry report released by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) on Monday, projected that emerging product categories — including 3D printers, 4K Ultra-High Definition televisions, connected thermostats, unmanned systems (unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned vehicles and home robots), IP cameras and wearables — would grow 108 percent year-over-year in 2015. Combined revenues in those categories are expected to reach nearly $11 billion in the U.S., representing less than five percent of overall consumer electronic sales.
"Our forecast underscores that consumers’ love affair with technology shows no signs of slowing any time soon," said CEA President and CEO Gary Shapiro.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are the same factors affecting the adoption of wearable technology and IoT in-home devices? Which forms of connected devices and smart technology do you think will become most popular?
Poll
Well, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that there is a natural leap from wearable tech for fitness to “smart homes.” I see plenty of people wearing Fitbits who are not what I would characterize as bleeding-edge tech people.
I actually think the kits that convert lighting to a smart or connected home will be the in-home piece that takes off, and that it will be the more green-minded consumers that make that leap first. Several of that type of person that I know have already started by buying and installing energy monitoring devices in their homes, which let them know how much electricity they’re using at any point in time. It’s only a short step to wanting to be able to turn everything on and off from their smartphone to make sure that they’re using as little power as possible when they don’t need to.
It is interesting to look at how different segments might respond to different opportunities—goes to show that tech, even in-home tech, has moved from tech for technology’s sake to useful applications that appeal to broader or different segments of the population—and not just the ones that like to be on the leading edge.
The interesting question for IoT is whether consumers had the intent to purchase a device because it had IoT, or whether they are passively purchasing something with IoT because it’s inside a device that has it (e.g., a smartTV).
Perhaps the even more interesting question will be how many consumers actually set up and USE the IoT capability. How many of your friends own a smartTV where they have it connected and are actively using the IoT capability on a regular basis?
I think IoT is still such a little-known concept that people are more likely to purchase the devices that they can understand as functioning on their own in a lower-tech way (fitness trackers are just smart pedometers, etc.). As consumers grow more comfortable with those devices I can see IoT slowly seeping more into every day life—but I don’t see a fast adoption rate.
Privacy concerns will continue to be a battle as well—whether justified or not.
Toys, toys, toys everywhere. But do they really make life better? Or are we giving up too much of what makes up life to technology? And exactly what will we do as technology takes over? Heck, there’s a cell phone app for checking on your baby! How tender.
What I wonder about, since I’m working in this space, is how exposed all this IoT stuff is. If it requires software code, and it all requires software code, every device you employ puts you at greater risk. The most optimistic estimate of software quality comes from tech guru Capers Jones who says, on average, there are 750 faults per 100k lines of code. One third of them (250) are capable of shutting the system down or producing wrong results. Your pacemaker has about 90,000 lines of code. Your phone 1.5 million. Laptop about 50 million. Your spiffy new smartwatch certainly has a million plus. EVERY device has a hacker target on its back. They can get to your bank account through your shirt.
But hey, as long as you don’t have to get up to vacuum, turn the lights on, make coffee, check on your kids, find out where your dog has gone or have a real face-to-face conversation—life is good!
The adoption of wearable devices will continue its rapid growth with the introduction of various sensors. Fitbit, Homedics and others are introducing biometric sensors that are being adopted rapidly for health and fitness purposes. In-home devices will be led by security cameras and other security-driven sensors. Thermostats seem to have become a clever technology implementation in desperate search of a valued strategy or consumer product. Health and fitness sensors and their integration with mobile devices will become more and more popular.
Wearable technology is proving slow to find an acceptable user interface. This is to say that users seemingly find them clumsy, ugly or of little practical use. This translates to a convoluted sales practice which dilutes margins to the point of very low corporate investor response.
As the user base is more successfully weaned from dependency and use of direct pressure-activated input devices and visual displays the market will open. This is proving difficult to overcome largely because the information technology developers themselves design product that accepts only the time-honored and mostly antiquated input/output devices like keyboards, cables and touch screens. As for the Internet of Things (IoT) this a market with lots of room to make money because of the perceived practical value to the consumer.
Consumers love control with special attention to time savers and convenience. This is especially true for the Millennial generation that will use their limited discretionary spending capital in the search for more remote control. Add to that the possibility of return on investment and the proliferation of new and improved technologies is highly probable. The largest expansion of these technologies is migrating from home and business security and environmental controls to home appliances both large and small. The electric switch/timer industry needs to re-evaluate the future if they are going to survive this onslaught for the long haul, but that’s a whole other discussion for another day.
Wearable technology, IoT and the like are indicative of (generally younger) consumers seeing where there can be real value in our increasingly data-driven world. We’ve likely not seen the majority of ways that the smart use of data and technology will become the most popular but they will all hopefully revolve around making life better for people in ways including those beyond commerce. It’s a wake-up call for many retailers who are not typically leading in terms of investments in technology, as if innovators like Warby Parker and Amazon haven’t been enough!
The limitation for in-home devices connecting to the manufacturer or service organization will be mostly limited to households that have a Wi-Fi network. Many households will never be connected to the internet and many that are do not have Wi-Fi. No one is going to pay to wire these devices into anything. Wearable technology is an interesting issue. I have observed that heavy smartphone users don’t have a watch. They use the smartphone to tell them the time as well as alert them to appointments. Non-smartphone users are less likely to purchase a wearable device. Longer-term I think the connectivity of in-home devices will have the greatest numbers, but wearable devices will have the larger sales dollars.
We will all end up owning these devices, because companies will make them. Maybe some day we will wonder how we lived without them—as we do now with smartphones. But maybe not.
I don’t really want to change the temperature in my refrigerator while I am at the office. I have to hunt for my phone now and then, but I never lose my light switches. Or my thermostat. I don’t have to remember the password to open the front door—thank goodness. I don’t have to worry that anyone will hack into my water heater and make me take a cold shower tomorrow morning.
And with all the competing systems out there, how would I remember which app controlled which devices? Life expectancy for a refrigerator is how long—15 or 20 years. Life expectancy of the computer inside any device is how long? Not long enough.
My computer locks up from time to time, The battery on my phone goes dead. None of the devices I might control ever malfunction.
Easy to see why I need IoT. Lol.
The in-home devices demonstrate a clear advantage—the ability to control something that you cannot now, with additional security and savings as the quantifiable benefits. Wearable technology lacks a clear advantage—what are we trying to do that is hard to do now?
No doubt the following was said during a previous technological epoch:
Beyond a lack of awareness, respondents had several issues with IcE devices (Internal Combustion Engine) including a lack of perceived value, privacy concerns and price concerns.
Said one confused shopper: “I just want to take my girlfriend to the beach, what’s IcE?”
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
The survey results, particularly as they relate to IoT, remind me of private brand surveys that have been conducted over the years. The industry is anxious to get a read on how consumers perceive a niche as defined by the industry (“IoT,” “private label,” “wearables”), yet consumers rarely adopt the same parlance or feel the need to categorize their preferences. That doesn’t mean they aren’t interested, that adoption will be sluggish or even that they aren’t buying into these categories without even knowing it.
The two are not mutually exclusive. In large part, advancers will be advancers regardless of the category. Furthermore, one is personal property while the other becomes real property.
Ultimately, IoT will be as integral a part of the home as is the kitchen. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that in-house plumbing was a luxury.
IoT devices may be purchased in large volumes, but how many will be registered? That’s the key.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Well, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that there is a natural leap from wearable tech for fitness to “smart homes.” I see plenty of people wearing Fitbits who are not what I would characterize as bleeding-edge tech people.
I actually think the kits that convert lighting to a smart or connected home will be the in-home piece that takes off, and that it will be the more green-minded consumers that make that leap first. Several of that type of person that I know have already started by buying and installing energy monitoring devices in their homes, which let them know how much electricity they’re using at any point in time. It’s only a short step to wanting to be able to turn everything on and off from their smartphone to make sure that they’re using as little power as possible when they don’t need to.
It is interesting to look at how different segments might respond to different opportunities—goes to show that tech, even in-home tech, has moved from tech for technology’s sake to useful applications that appeal to broader or different segments of the population—and not just the ones that like to be on the leading edge.
The interesting question for IoT is whether consumers had the intent to purchase a device because it had IoT, or whether they are passively purchasing something with IoT because it’s inside a device that has it (e.g., a smartTV).
Perhaps the even more interesting question will be how many consumers actually set up and USE the IoT capability. How many of your friends own a smartTV where they have it connected and are actively using the IoT capability on a regular basis?
I think IoT is still such a little-known concept that people are more likely to purchase the devices that they can understand as functioning on their own in a lower-tech way (fitness trackers are just smart pedometers, etc.). As consumers grow more comfortable with those devices I can see IoT slowly seeping more into every day life—but I don’t see a fast adoption rate.
Privacy concerns will continue to be a battle as well—whether justified or not.
Toys, toys, toys everywhere. But do they really make life better? Or are we giving up too much of what makes up life to technology? And exactly what will we do as technology takes over? Heck, there’s a cell phone app for checking on your baby! How tender.
What I wonder about, since I’m working in this space, is how exposed all this IoT stuff is. If it requires software code, and it all requires software code, every device you employ puts you at greater risk. The most optimistic estimate of software quality comes from tech guru Capers Jones who says, on average, there are 750 faults per 100k lines of code. One third of them (250) are capable of shutting the system down or producing wrong results. Your pacemaker has about 90,000 lines of code. Your phone 1.5 million. Laptop about 50 million. Your spiffy new smartwatch certainly has a million plus. EVERY device has a hacker target on its back. They can get to your bank account through your shirt.
But hey, as long as you don’t have to get up to vacuum, turn the lights on, make coffee, check on your kids, find out where your dog has gone or have a real face-to-face conversation—life is good!
The adoption of wearable devices will continue its rapid growth with the introduction of various sensors. Fitbit, Homedics and others are introducing biometric sensors that are being adopted rapidly for health and fitness purposes. In-home devices will be led by security cameras and other security-driven sensors. Thermostats seem to have become a clever technology implementation in desperate search of a valued strategy or consumer product. Health and fitness sensors and their integration with mobile devices will become more and more popular.
Wearable technology is proving slow to find an acceptable user interface. This is to say that users seemingly find them clumsy, ugly or of little practical use. This translates to a convoluted sales practice which dilutes margins to the point of very low corporate investor response.
As the user base is more successfully weaned from dependency and use of direct pressure-activated input devices and visual displays the market will open. This is proving difficult to overcome largely because the information technology developers themselves design product that accepts only the time-honored and mostly antiquated input/output devices like keyboards, cables and touch screens. As for the Internet of Things (IoT) this a market with lots of room to make money because of the perceived practical value to the consumer.
Consumers love control with special attention to time savers and convenience. This is especially true for the Millennial generation that will use their limited discretionary spending capital in the search for more remote control. Add to that the possibility of return on investment and the proliferation of new and improved technologies is highly probable. The largest expansion of these technologies is migrating from home and business security and environmental controls to home appliances both large and small. The electric switch/timer industry needs to re-evaluate the future if they are going to survive this onslaught for the long haul, but that’s a whole other discussion for another day.
Wearable technology, IoT and the like are indicative of (generally younger) consumers seeing where there can be real value in our increasingly data-driven world. We’ve likely not seen the majority of ways that the smart use of data and technology will become the most popular but they will all hopefully revolve around making life better for people in ways including those beyond commerce. It’s a wake-up call for many retailers who are not typically leading in terms of investments in technology, as if innovators like Warby Parker and Amazon haven’t been enough!
The limitation for in-home devices connecting to the manufacturer or service organization will be mostly limited to households that have a Wi-Fi network. Many households will never be connected to the internet and many that are do not have Wi-Fi. No one is going to pay to wire these devices into anything. Wearable technology is an interesting issue. I have observed that heavy smartphone users don’t have a watch. They use the smartphone to tell them the time as well as alert them to appointments. Non-smartphone users are less likely to purchase a wearable device. Longer-term I think the connectivity of in-home devices will have the greatest numbers, but wearable devices will have the larger sales dollars.
We will all end up owning these devices, because companies will make them. Maybe some day we will wonder how we lived without them—as we do now with smartphones. But maybe not.
I don’t really want to change the temperature in my refrigerator while I am at the office. I have to hunt for my phone now and then, but I never lose my light switches. Or my thermostat. I don’t have to remember the password to open the front door—thank goodness. I don’t have to worry that anyone will hack into my water heater and make me take a cold shower tomorrow morning.
And with all the competing systems out there, how would I remember which app controlled which devices? Life expectancy for a refrigerator is how long—15 or 20 years. Life expectancy of the computer inside any device is how long? Not long enough.
My computer locks up from time to time, The battery on my phone goes dead. None of the devices I might control ever malfunction.
Easy to see why I need IoT. Lol.
The in-home devices demonstrate a clear advantage—the ability to control something that you cannot now, with additional security and savings as the quantifiable benefits. Wearable technology lacks a clear advantage—what are we trying to do that is hard to do now?
No doubt the following was said during a previous technological epoch:
Beyond a lack of awareness, respondents had several issues with IcE devices (Internal Combustion Engine) including a lack of perceived value, privacy concerns and price concerns.
Said one confused shopper: “I just want to take my girlfriend to the beach, what’s IcE?”
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
The survey results, particularly as they relate to IoT, remind me of private brand surveys that have been conducted over the years. The industry is anxious to get a read on how consumers perceive a niche as defined by the industry (“IoT,” “private label,” “wearables”), yet consumers rarely adopt the same parlance or feel the need to categorize their preferences. That doesn’t mean they aren’t interested, that adoption will be sluggish or even that they aren’t buying into these categories without even knowing it.
The two are not mutually exclusive. In large part, advancers will be advancers regardless of the category. Furthermore, one is personal property while the other becomes real property.
Ultimately, IoT will be as integral a part of the home as is the kitchen. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that in-house plumbing was a luxury.
IoT devices may be purchased in large volumes, but how many will be registered? That’s the key.