Connected homes will take longer to materialise than
expected
THE
fanfare has gone on for years. Analysts have repeatedly predicted that the
“internet of things”, which adds sensors and internet capability to everyday
physical objects, could transform the lives of individuals as dramatically as
the spread of the mobile internet. Providers have focused on the home, touting
products such as coffee pots that turn on when the alarm clock rings, lighting
and blinds that adjust to the time of day, and fridges that send an alert when
the milk runs out. But so far consumers have been largely resistant to making
their homes “smart”.
That’s
not for want of trying by tech firms, which have poured cash into their efforts
to connect everyday objects to the internet. In 2014 Google made the biggest
statement of intent so far, spending $3.2 billion to acquire Nest, a smart
thermostat-maker, and $550m to buy Dropcam, which makes home-security cameras.
Nest absorbed Dropcam; it is now one of the best-known smart-home brands. But
it is also a warning about how long it will take for such gadgets to enter the
mainstream.
Nest
has undoubtedly disappointed Google. It sold just 1.3m smart thermostats in
2015, and only 2.5m in total over the past few years, according to Strategy
Analytics, a research firm. For a couple of years the firm has mainly tweaked
existing products rather than introducing new ones. That may explain why Tony
Fadell, Nest’s founder and boss, stepped down on June 3rd to take an advisory
role at Google’s parent company, Alphabet (see article). Mr
Fadell, a former executive at Apple and designer of the iPod, failed to bring
his magic touch to the smart home.
Nest’s
problems are symptomatic. Only 6% of American households have a smart-home
device, including internet-connected appliances, home-monitoring systems,
speakers or lighting, according to Frank Gillett of Forrester, a research firm.
Breakneck growth is not expected; by 2021 the number will be just over 15% (see
chart). Too few consumers are convinced that the internet has a role to play in
every corner of their lives. A survey conducted in Britain by PricewaterhouseCoopers,
a consulting firm, found that 72% of people have no plans to adopt smart-home
technology in the next two to five years and that they are unwilling to pay for
it. Last year consumers globally spent around $60 billion on hardware and
services for the smart home, a fraction of the total outlay on domestic
gadgets.
There
are several reasons for muted enthusiasm. Businesses have an incentive to
embrace the internet of things: there are cost savings to be had from embedding
sensors in equipment and factories, analysing the data thus produced and
improving efficiency. A lot of smart devices for the home, in contrast, remain
“fun but not essential”, says Adam Sager of Canary, a startup that makes
cameras that lets people monitor what is happening in their house.
Many
smart gadgets are still too expensive. One of Samsung’s smart fridges, with
cameras within that check for rotting food and enable consumers to see what
they are short of while shopping (through an app on their phone), sells for a
cool $5,000. People who can afford that probably don’t do their own shopping.
Appliances such as fridges are also ones that households replace infrequently:
that slows the take-up of new devices.
The
technology is not perfect yet, either. The smartphone, the link between the
customer and smart-home device, has raised consumers’ expectations, explains
Jamie Siminoff, the boss of Ring, a startup that makes a doorbell that can be
answered remotely. Smartphones have trained users to expect a level of quality
and seamless ease of use that smart-home devices struggle to replicate. And a
lack of standardisation means that gadgets from different firms cannot
communicate with each other.
There
are exceptions. Devices that are easy to install and offer obvious benefits are
gaining in popularity, such as motion sensors that send alerts when windows and
doors are opened and cameras to monitor activity. Some devices, such as smart
smoke detectors, are in homes because insurance companies offer financial
incentives for using them. The smart-home sector is vibrant with startups and
big firms betting that the hesitancy is temporary. But consumer apathy has
forced firms to rethink how they might woo customers.
Perhaps
the biggest surprise is that Amazon, which failed miserably in its ambition to
develop a smartphone, is showing the way. Amazon Echo is a smart speaker that
can recognise and respond to voice commands. It shares information about the
weather and sports scores, plays music and turns lights on and off. The device,
which costs around $180, is not yet a big seller. Amazon does not release sales
figures, but Strategy Analytics estimates that fewer than 1m Echos have been
sold since it was released in November 2014. Yet the Echo is the talk of
Silicon Valley.
Talk
to your appliance
An interface
that relies on voice commands could overcome one of the drawbacks of the
piecemeal approach to the smart home, by becoming the standard integrator of
all the other bits of smart kit. Echo is open to outside developers, who can
come up with all manner of devices and services that hook up with it. Echo’s
success may have come as a surprise, but competitors have cottoned on that it
may be a crucial piece of equipment. Google has announced plans to build a
stand-alone hub like Echo, called Google Home, which will also rely on voice
commands.
Apple
is also expected to announce new smart-home capabilities: there are rumours it
could launch a stand-alone hub in the Echo vein at its annual developers’
conference on June 13th. Its smart-home platform, called HomeKit, has been a
failure so far. That Apple, despite its large base of affluent acolytes, has
not yet cracked the smart home is a sign of its difficulty, points out Geoff
Blaber at CCS Insight, which tracks mobile-industry trends.
Each
tech giant has a different reason for trying to overcome the indifference of
consumers, and to embed itself more deeply in the home. The Echo can help
Amazon learn how people spend their time, and make it easier for them to spend
money too by suggesting things they might buy. Google, whose main business is
advertising, also wants to draw from a fresh well of data; by learning as much
about users as possible, it can target them with appropriate ads. Apple, with a
track record of simplifying and creating ecosystems where others before it
could not, wants its devices to be the gateway through which people go to
organise their lives.
If the
tech giants retain their ambition to sit at the centre of the smart home,
uncertainty prevails over where the profits lie. “It remains unclear what the
economic model for the smart home will be,” says Andy Hobsbawm of Evrythng, an
internet-of-things platform. Some firms will try to make enough profit just
from hardware. Others will try to sell services, such as archiving security
videos, as well as devices, and charge a fee. The products that fill houses are
diverse, personal and durable. That should give plenty of companies a shot at
lodging themselves in the home—but only when consumers decide to put out the
welcome mat.
No comments:
Post a Comment