I’m currently pulling together a few slides to introduce Berg as a platform to a few manufacturers.
Which means I’ll be introducing the Internet of Things!
As I’ve mentioned before, I have mixed feelings about the term “Internet of Things”… it seems to mean everything and nothing. Like, is it RFIDs in airports to track luggage, combine harvesters driven by town-wide WiMAX, or web-connected receipt printers for the home? Too much.
So for consumer Internet of Things, it seems useful to make categories (I’m going to ignore agriculture, health, industry and whatnot). Each of the four categories seems to be aligning around a wireless technology… or a pattern of user interaction… or a marketing term… or something. But they seem like different things, at least in early 2014.
The idea is that the manufacturer should choose the user benefit they most want to enable, then choose the category that best fits. That will drive their technology selection, how their product is developed, etc. Much more useful than the general term “IoT”.
Here’s my slide so far (tap for embiggening).
For me these categories are driven by different things:
- Wearables — battery-powered smartphone peripherals aligning around Bluetooth LE, but also devices that don’t require their own connection to the web
- Media — music and movies
- Home automation — low latency interactions (sub 100ms) mean round-tripping to the web isn’t possible; strong need for product interop
Connected productsSmart appliances — products requiring their own direct network connection, with a tightly coupled service (this is where Berg is)
There are other connectivity models, and I reckon that this time next year categories will have merged and others appeared. But for the moment… this is a good reflection of market reality.
Or is it?
I’ve opened comments on this post! Let me know what you think, either here or on Twitter. I’m @genmon.