Motivating the Consumer IoT

[From the last episode: There are lots of reasons why the Industrial IoTThe Internet of Things. A broad term covering many different applications where "things"  are interconnected through the internet. (IIoTIndustrial Internet of Things. A broad collection of factory, automotive, agricultural, medical, and other areas where IoT technology is used.) makes sense from the standpoint of the end user or company.]

The Consumer IoT (CIoTConsumer Internet of Things. IoT gadgetry designed for home and personal use.), by contrast with the IIoT, has had a harder time finding a compelling reason why we should all buy new gadgetry. Often referred to as the Smart HomeA buzzword for interconnected home devices - TV, refrigerator, door locks, etc., it takes items we already have and use and connects them to the cloudA generic phrase referring to large numbers of computers located somewhere far away and accessed over the internet. For the IoT, computing may be local, done in the same system or building, or in the cloud, with data shipped up to the cloud and then the result shipped back down. in order to… do something. I’ve done coverage elsewhere that goes through some analysis to see what benefits might accrue to us, and, while there are no doubt useful possible applications, I’m still on the sidelines.

Smart and Connected Aren’t the Same Thing

One of the things that gets confusing about the CIoT is specifically that people also refer to it as “Smart-Home technology.” Of course, there’s no definition of “smart.” But, for instance, let’s say you’ve got a smart saucepan that can connect to a smart stove. If the saucepan boils dry and starts to overheat, it can signal the stove to turn off. (To be clear, I haven’t seen this specific feature; I’m just making up something that sounds useful to me.)

Here’s the question: is an internet connectionThis refers to some kind of electrical connection. It might be through a network cable, a cable connection, a wireless connection, or a phone - just to name some options. The connection might be to the internet or to some other local device. required to make this happen? Or could the saucepan simply talk to the stove over, say, Bluetooth? That depends on how much “computing” power the saucepan and stove have. Each of these devices needs some ability to make decisions, and that happens in small “computer chips” that have been added to things like a saucepan to make it “smart.” But computer chipsAn electronic device made on a piece of silicon. These days, it could also involve a mechanical chip, but, to the outside world, everything looks electronic. The chip is usually in some kind of package; that package might contain multiple chips. "Integrated circuit," and "IC" mean the same thing, but refer only to electronic chips, not mechanical chips. come in lots of sizes, and the size determines how much work it can do.

One of the roles of the Cloud is to take on computing work that’s too intensive for IoT devices. So if the saucepan has a really small computing chip, for example, it might be capable only of sensing the temperature and sending that info to the Cloud. Then the Cloud runs the “rules” that say, “If the temperature gets above 215 °F (or 103 °C), instruct the stove to shut down that burner.” On the other hand, if the saucepan has a beefier computing chip, then it might be able to make the decision itself.

Naturally, smaller computer chips cost less than bigger ones, so making the saucepan able to make decisions on its own will affect the cost of the saucepan. A high-end clad pan might support the additional cost, while a cheap one might not.

Another reason to send the data to the Cloud is so that you can control the stove and saucepan from your phone when not at home. You might want this even if the Cloud isn’t needed to make the actual decisions. Here your phone is basically acting as a remote control – very remote. Or, if you want the saucepan to send you a text so that you know that this has happened, then you’d also need to involve the Cloud — even if you’re just in the next room.

On the other hand, a reason not to use the Cloud might be that it does take some time for the info to go up to the Cloud and for the decision to come back. For instance, makers of door locks may decide that, if you want to lock your door from inside the house with your phone (which is close enough to talk directly to the door lock), then do it direct because it can happen faster. It might take a second or a few if the Cloud participates. And if you’re in an emergency situation, you want to lock as fast as you can. Of course, if you want to use the phone for that when you’re not at home, then it still has to go through the Cloud to get to your home.

What’s In It for Manufacturers?

There are a couple possible other industry motivations for this CIoT — ones that benefit someone other than us.

• Many (most?) devices envision a serviceWe are used to purchasing products outright. "Services" is a new concept where you may or may not buy the product, but optional or mandatory services come with the product. Those services may have an ongoing cost separate from the purchase price. component to your purchase. For example, instead of just buying a dishwasher and that’s that, you can now (or you must now?) buy a service agreement on top of that to get benefits from the Cloud connection. Perhaps it promises to save you water or soap. Perhaps it can detect when there’s something delicate and sets a gentler setting to avoid breakage. (I’m just making these up, by the way.)
  But the key question here is, how much money is it saving you? If you’re going to have a $10/month service charge, are you saving $10/month in soap and water and breakage? Or are you, net net, spending more per month? And what happens when the refrigerator and laundry appliances and toaster and… and… all have monthly service fees? For the companies selling this stuff, shareholders love it because the money doesn’t stop when you buy the item. They get an “annuity” that keeps paying beyond that. More money for them; not clear yet if it saves you money.
• Some prognosticators see us moving away from an ownership model to a rental model. They install the machineIn our context, a machine is anything that isn't human (or living). That includes electronic equipment like computers and phones., and then you pay monthly to keep using it. Miss a payment and they could shut the machine off until you’re back up to date. If that’s the only benefit of the connection – allowing the manufacturer to control your use – then your benefits aren’t clear. It depends on how the total accumulated rental charge compares to what the outright purchase price would have been. Then again, if you have limited cash up-front, this could be a benefit – as an option. My instinct is that if you were going to save money this way, the manufacturers wouldn’t invest in technology to make it happen, since they’d have no return on that investment (unless it gave them a temporary competitive advantage and they could gain more customers until other companies responded).
• There’s always the likelihood that the payoff for the seller is that they can collect and sell your data. This seems to be the big one. I’ve sat in on a huge number of IoT-related development conferences, and at the end of it all, it seems like the biggest motivation for all of this is to get data on how you live and sell it to advertisers. One of the popular examples of a CIoT device is the smart refrigerator that can tell you while you’re traveling that you’re low on milk. I will go into more detail later on why I question that value (unless maintaining a shopping list is a huge problem that you need solved), but the main point is that such information is of incredible value to the folks selling milk.

I Only Sound Grumpy

So, as full disclosure, I’m probably on the cynical side when it comes to the Consumer IoT as compared to my colleagues in the industry and as compared to how I view the Industrial IoT. But I’m not irrevocably grumpy about it; if someone can show me a compelling analysis that shows great value, then heck – I’d probably buy the product. But that hasn’t happened yet. There’s been less emphasis on really “smart” things and more focus on just shipping lots of data into the Cloud. Perhaps it’s just a matter of time.

Realistically, it’s likely that people will spend money on this stuff for one of two reasons.

• A big one, early on, is simply that the technology is cool. And, indeed, it is super cool, so if that’s your jam, go for it. But cool lasts only until something cooler comes along; it’s not lasting value.
• The second reason is that the device solves some problem you have that’s “painful.” Yes, sometimes you’ll do it for a little problem, but if there’s a tradeoff – like having your usage tracked – then you may not want to move until you have a really compelling reason.

Slower-than-anticipated sales of smart-home gadgetry suggests that much of this is not yet compelling. I did some analysis of reports of smart home traction elsewhere in the past. It pays to read the reports and surveys carefully, since I don’t always come to the same conclusions, based on the data, as they do.

If you have ideas about ways in which smart devices and appliances could make your life a lot easier, please comment. Meanwhile, a future post will look at specific questions you can ask to see if an IoT purchase is useful.