Author: Bob O'Donnell

I’ve been doing a great deal of research on corporate purchase, usage, and management of devices recently, and I’ve come across some interesting findings. Most importantly, the corporate smartphone is far from dead.

Though it’s easy to assume that BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) has taken over the world—especially in the US—and that everyone buys and brings their own smartphone to work, that isn’t the case. Particularly in more regulated industries like healthcare and financial services, there’s still a great deal of pushback for BYOD overall and still very healthy purchases of smartphones by these companies.

In fact, according to research I’ve recently completed, companies in those industries are purchasing 59% of the smartphones in active use by their employees—only 41% of employees’ primary work smartphones are being purchased by individuals.

In another survey of US healthcare companies, I also found 35% of them either strictly forbid or don’t have a BYOD program. Now, admittedly, the highly regulated healthcare industry tends to be a bit more conservative than others, but not by that much (typically only a few percentage points difference at most). The fact is, there are large groups of people who can’t use their own smartphone for work-related purposes and, even in organizations that do allow BYOD, a majority of smartphones are likely still being purchased by the company.[pullquote]There are large groups of people who can’t use their own smartphone for work-related purposes and, even in organizations that do allow BYOD, a majority of smartphones are likely still being purchased by the company.”[/pullquote]

Knowing this both explains some interesting market developments and provides an opportunity for products and services that are specifically targeted at this market. First, if you’ve ever wondered how Blackberry has continued to hold on, this is clearly the reason. The vast majority of their business has always been and continues to be corporate-purchased smartphones. Of course, most organizations have opened up their purchases to other operating systems, which is a key factor in why Blackberry’s unit shipments have continued to decline.

Many of the IT professionals who are making or strongly influencing these purchases also have a soft spot for Windows and this preference clearly shows up in survey results. Though it’s well known the percentage of consumers actively using Windows Phones is small, what isn’t well known is a surprisingly large percentage of companies (over 40% in several different surveys) have employees who use devices running Microsoft’s mobile OS. In fact, in a TECHnalysis Research survey of US healthcare companies, 17% of work smartphones in their organizations were running Windows Phone. This goes a long way towards explaining Microsoft’s recent comments about focusing their future smartphone development towards enterprise as a key target. They actually have a solid opportunity there.

Speaking of opportunities, there are also strong markets for tools designed to manage smartphones and the increasingly large data sets that reside on them. In addition, there are budding business opportunities for tools focused on building custom mobile applications for business. I’ve covered this topic more thoroughly in the past but suffice it to say custom applications for PCs have been at the heart of most companies’ IT operations for decades. As these organizations transition their cadre of business apps to mobile, there is great business potential. This is one of the main reasons Apple took the unusual step of partnering with IBM nearly a year ago to help build and sell these custom mobile apps. With the rapid transition to large screen smartphones, this becomes even more interesting because of how much functionality can be built into mobile apps.

The corporate angle is also the reason Samsung has invested a great deal of time and money in Knox, their device and data management tool. I expect to see Google increase their offerings in these areas well.

Tracking corporate device purchases may not be as exciting as tracking consumers, but as consumer smartphone sales start to flatten and even decline in more established markets, those interested in following the money will inevitably be drawn to these hidden opportunities in corporate smartphones.

One of the big promises of IoT is supposed to be insight. The idea is that, by collecting all kinds of data from a myriad of connected sensors, both businesses and consumers will be able to learn more about the systems, devices, and environments around them.

The key component to bridge the gap between data and insight is, of course, analytics. Big data analytics has been a major buzzword in the IT world for the last five years or more, and it’s the key to generating the sort of knowledge we’re all hoping IoT can enable.

The problem, or challenge, is analytics is a complex topic few people really understand. (frankly, it’s a topic that can, and does, mean a variety of different things to different people.) Analytics for IoT is the sort of vague software “magic” that has many people salivating over the potential of what it can do, without necessarily looking at the reality of what it has actually achieved.

The theory is that you pump IoT-generated data into the black box of an analytics engine—most likely hidden on some unknown server in the cloud—and you’ll get a continuous stream of insights fed back to you.[pullquote]Analytics for IoT is the sort of vague software ‘magic’ that has many people salivating over the potential of what it can do, without necessarily looking at the reality of what it has actually achieved.”[/pullquote]

While there may be a system or two that comes close to this ideal, it seems that, at present, this is more the exception than the rule. Instead, there are a fair number of cases in which a significant amount of sensor-generated data gets fed into some sort of pattern or rule matching tool and, at best, the output is only modestly useful data points.

Part of the problem may be inaccurate assumptions or expectations about what’s really possible. For one thing, I think many people assume analytics projects are essentially never-ending–if you keep feeding data in, the results will keep coming out. In reality however, many are finding that, while analysis of IoT-generated data can create some solid insights, it’s essentially a one-trick pony.

For example, in the widely discussed story of connected cows—where female cows were fitted with pedometers and Fujitsu researchers discovered that, when they go into heat, they exhibit a particular walking pattern—the result was an extremely positive increase in insemination rates. It’s a great insight, but once the analysis was done, all they had to do was look for that pattern and then take appropriate action. Mission accomplished.

Similarly, the kinds of automated HVAC systems that have been integrated into “smart buildings” for some time can track the movement and density of people in a building and adjust settings accordingly. It’s practical and useful, but not necessarily the profound outcome many people seem to associate with the analytics of IoT.

The example of the connected cows also highlights other common misconceptions around analytics and IoT. For one thing, it’s not always big data; it can be little data—as in the footsteps of a herd of cows. Therefore, it’s possible the “analytics” can be done directly on an endpoint device and don’t necessarily have to be done with big server hardware somewhere in the cloud.

One could argue wearables with integrated sensors could perform these kinds of actions themselves. Yes, they could compare their own data to a set of data retrieved from the cloud, but they also could be built as a closed-loop environment. While there are certainly arguments to be made to keep things like wearables more open, there’s no denying the reduced security risks in a closed loop versus an open one.

Analytics in the IoT world is still evolving and I look forward to the interesting applications created over the next several years. Nevertheless, I think it’s critical to keep expectations in check because there’s no guarantee analyzing IoT data is going to generate useful, much less earth-shattering, information on a regular basis. In fact, we will likely see many more data dead ends than insightful vistas in the years to come.

Sometimes the signs of change are more obvious than others.

When a spokesperson for the Linux Foundation calls to talk about an open source contribution from Microsoft into the Qualcomm-driven AllSeen Alliance that’s about bridging older industrial automation standards into the sexy new world of IOT, you know something must be happening.

And so it is.

Today, these interesting bedfellows are announcing the release of the AllJoyn Device System Bridge (DSB), a Microsoft-created open source addition to AllJoyn that incorporates an overall framework for bridging specialized and/or proprietary protocols into AllJoyn, and specifically includes two example “bridges.” One is designed to communicate with older building automation systems using BACnet, and the other is for connecting to existing ZWave-based smart lighting and other home automation products. This work extends Microsoft’s previously announced intention to build AllJoyn support into Windows 10.

As I’ve written about in the past (here and here), it’s a lot easier to talk in theory about making everything connect to everything than it is to actually do it. Then again, there is the question of whether or not that ought to be the right goal. The truth is, to make IOT really start to happen, all we need is to get enough of the right things to talk to enough of the other right things (albeit, in a secure manner). So, I’m encouraged by efforts that—in theory, at least—look to make it possible to try and connect more devices together.

Within the enterprise world—where I continue to believe there’s a significantly larger real money opportunity for IOT—there are hundreds of different verticals that have essentially been engaging in IOT-like applications for some time. In the past, this was called embedded computing or industrial computing or command-and-control systems or a whole host of other unsexy-sounding names. But now, they’ve been sprinkled with the pixie dust of IOT and, suddenly, they’re a hot, cool topic.

The problem is that, because they tended to be industry or solution-specific, most people didn’t worry about whether one type of system could talk to another. Now, however, there’s interest in making that happen—partially because of the fact that analytics tools are becoming available that might be able to convert the output from some of these systems into actionable information (though it’s not always the case). So, again, developments that can help bridge these different worlds could prove to be very beneficial.[pullquote]The optimist in me hopes that developments like AllJoyn DSB can help overcome the technical and political challenges of IOT, but the realist in me thinks that’s probably too idealistic.”[/pullquote]

In the smart home and consumer world, the challenge of interconnecting across different companies’ products and standards also exists, but it takes a slightly different form. Frankly, the challenges for the consumer IOT market are tougher, in that any solution has to be made incredibly easy. For commercial applications, you can count on experienced programmers to help make the various devices work together, whereas that’s obviously unacceptable in the consumer market.

Speaking of programmers, in case you were wondering the motivation behind Microsoft’s effort, it turns out this DSB extension for AllJoyn will enable Microsoft’s faithful Visual Studio customers to extend their skill sets beyond Windows applications into building apps for the red-hot world of IOT. Smart.

The optimist in me hopes that developments like AllJoyn DSB can help overcome not only the technical challenges of interconnecting the currently separated islands of IOT activity, but also some of the many political challenges from intra-industry battles that have kept IOT from moving forward at a faster pace. The realist in me thinks that’s probably too idealistic. Nevertheless, the creation of physical and “metaphysical” bridges across the IOT archipelago has got to be seen as movement in the right direction.

In many ways, the current obsession with the Internet of Things (IOT) is understandable. The tech press is constantly on the lookout for something cool and fresh to write about, and IOT is this year’s hot topic. Plus, the idea of connecting essentially everything to everything is pretty compelling at a conceptual level.

However, there are some harsh realities that really shouldn’t and can’t be ignored. Whether we want to admit it or not, anything that gets connected to either a wired or wireless network has the potential to be—and probably at some point will be—hacked. Whether it’s a security camera we install in our homes, a connected module inside our new cars, or an automated building HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) system within the buildings we work or visit, the threat is there.

Unscrupulous individuals could leverage the connection to these devices to either cause functional difficulties on the devices or systems themselves, or simply to use them as a backdoor entry into other devices on a connected network and create problems there. We’ve already seen incidents of individuals who’ve shown that they can “break” into various car systems to cause potentially lethal issues to still or even moving cars. It’s also been reported that some of the bigger hack attacks on large corporations actually came through seemingly innocuous devices (like connected HVAC systems) sitting on their networks.

Of course, security-related issues for connected devices are nothing new. We’ve been reading and hearing about computer-based hackers for several decades now. But what is new is the amount and range of devices being connected to a network. With IOT, the number of connected devices goes through the roof. On the one hand, you could argue that this makes the likelihood of an attack on any particular device go down. However, the overall attack surface is increasing so much that it’s creating an extremely attractive target for the more sophisticated, organized and aggressive hackers now initiating these attacks.

A big part of the problem is that most of these new IOT devices are not being brought to market with a robust security model in mind. Instead, the focus is on offering simple connectivity in order to give them new functionality, with easy access being a core part of this new capability. Combine this with all the well-intended efforts that have been introduced over the last several years to make networking easier, and you’ve got the recipe for a potential disaster.

Another key part of the issue is that it’s difficult to think through all the potential scenarios that these kinds of IOT devices might be put through. What we really need are extremely simple tools that can tell us things like what kind of information is being broadcast around our networks; what sorts of “requests” for information are being sent to our networks, how to block and/or stop this kind of information, straightforward explanations of what it all means, and so on.[pullquote]I’m concerned that if we keep moving in the direction of letting everything just start connecting to everything else, just because it can, we’re in for some very difficult challenges.”[/pullquote]

At the same time, despite the potential hit on convenience and ease of use that this might entail, we need to give serious consideration to making more network and communication settings “off“ by default. Admittedly, this a different (and difficult) mindset for most vendors to adopt, but I’m concerned that if we keep moving in the direction of letting everything just start connecting to everything else, just because it can, we’re in for some very difficult challenges.

As technological improvements around IOT connectivity start moving faster, it’s not only worth our while, but essential for us to step back and really start thinking about what the implications really are and will be. There will always be tradeoffs between convenience and capability and ease-of-use and privacy, and sometimes and for some people, those tradeoffs will be worth accepting. However, for many, the potential risks outweigh any minor potential rewards. If vendors, and the tech industry overall, really want IOT to reach the kind of potential that many believe it has, they’re going to have to put security (along with clear explanations of security issues and settings) at the forefront of their efforts.

In the world of enterprise IT and high-end business computing, the idea of delivering software as a service is relatively old news. In fact, the acronym SaaS (Software as a Service) is now so commonplace there that you rarely, if ever, see it spelled out anymore. Plus, in that world, everyone is rushing to deliver everything as a service—in fact, the new buzzword is “XaaS,” where “x” is like an algebraic variable that can seemingly represent anything.

In the world of consumer and small business, however, the concept of software being delivered as a service is still relatively new. Many people are just starting to get their heads around things like Microsoft’s Office 365, which provides end users with access to popular Office applications like Word, Excel and PowerPoint. By paying an annual subscription fee, Office 365 not only allows you to get these key applications on your main PC, it also lets you access them on multiple PCs in a household. Plus, when upgrades come out, you get automatic access to those new versions—it’s all part of the package.

On top of that, you can now gain access to these apps on multiple devices, even across different operating systems, which is a new twist on traditional SaaS. In this era of multiple devices per person, this is extremely important, because people need to exist across multiple operating systems and expect to be able to get things done no matter which device they happen to be using.

Another offering along these lines is the newly unveiled 2015 release of Adobe’s Creative Cloud, which is designed for creative professionals and offers access to Photoshop, Illustrator, DreamWeaver (for website creation and editing) and much more. Like Office 365, Creative Cloud offers a variety of different subscription price models, each of which give you access to the latest versions of Adobe’s key applications across different operating systems on different machines. The new version of Creative Cloud also provides easy (though not free) access to Adobe Stock, a new stock photo and clip art library service.

In a similar way, Office 365 has moved well beyond the limits of its core apps and moved into online e-mail, calendar, file storage and even business communications with Skype. It seems the business model for both Microsoft and Adobe has evolved from “software as a service” to “software is a service” because of all the additional capabilities now available.

And it’s not just these business software mainstays that are adapting this approach. Many of Apple’s latest software offerings are essentially being turned into services. Certainly the forthcoming Apple Music is a good example, but even Apple’s operating systems (OS X for Macs and iOS for iPhones and iPads) and all the apps that the company bundles with them (iCloud, Pages, Photos, GarageBand, etc.) have become more like services than independent software.[pullquote]More and more of the things we want to do, the information we want to gather, and the means of communicating with others are becoming services that are embedded into different platforms. “[/pullquote]

In Apple’s case, these software updates are now free (as are many, many other web-based applications), but the idea is that underlying software is being subsumed into the greater purpose of delivering a set of capabilities that can be more easily kept up-to-date. It’s not just about a different business model for delivering software, it’s also about a different way of providing key functionality.

Taking this analogy to an even higher level, you could even start to argue that independent applications, both on PCs and mobile devices, have started to go away. More and more of the things we want to do, the information we want to gather, and the means of communicating with others are becoming services that are embedded into different platforms. As with previous examples, some of these services are independent of the underlying operating system while others are becoming increasingly embedded into it.

The really tangible benefits of these software service models hit home recently as I was setting up some new PCs. After ensuring that I had the latest Windows Updates, all I had to do was enable my Office 365 and Creative Cloud accounts on each of them. Not only did this start the process of installing the latest versions of my core applications, it also gave me cloud-based access to all the documents I create in each of them. Microsoft delivers these documents through OneDrive and Adobe through their own CreativeSync, but regardless, the whole process was significantly easier and faster than the traditional way of installing an app at a time, then updating all those apps, then making sure I had all the files I needed, etc.

The likelihood that we will all continue to add to both the quantity and variety of our smart connected computing device collections is extremely high, so the value of these new software services cannot be overstated. By giving us the tools we need across the devices we use, they really can make the process of using all our different devices much easier.

Much of the tech press regularly overlooks PCs for wearables, smart homes, and IoT-related topics but, in the real world and to many people, PCs still matter a lot. So, this week’s news out of Redmond and Taipei (where the annual Computex Trade show is being held) are actually really important.

To wit, Microsoft finally unveiled the official release date for Windows 10 (July 29) and Intel released more details about its next generation CPUs and chipsets, which are expected in PCs shipping in August. The combination of all these technologies will lead to not only the best performing PCs we’ve seen, but also the most capable, most flexible, and most expandable as well.[pullquote]The combination of all these technologies will lead to not only the best performing PCs we’ve seen, but also the most capable, most flexible, and most expandable as well.”[/pullquote]

Windows 10 brings back the Start Menu and melds it together with elements of Windows 8 that really were useful once you got used to them (such as Tiles), while adding fascinating new extras like Cortana, Windows Hello for biometric authentication (e.g., log-in with your fingerprint, face or eventually, eye), and better integration with other Microsoft services (OneDrive, Xbox, Skype, etc.) The net result is a genuinely better OS both Windows 7 and Windows 8 users should be quite happy with.

Intel’s Skylake CPUs are expected to bring better battery life for notebooks and 2-in-1s, greatly improved graphics performance, and support for faster DDR-4 memory. More importantly, the companion chipsets launching with Skylake are also going to enable several key new system-level capabilities including wireless charging (although, initially, with a hit to notebook thin-ness) and the introduction of Thunderbolt 3.

Now admittedly, most people lost interest in PC connectivity standards a long time ago, but Thunderbolt 3.0 looks to be a big change because it brings together the new USB type C connector along with significantly expanded capability and throughput. Specifically, the 40 Gbps data transfer rate of Thunderbolt 3.0 will support up to two daisy-chained 4K displays (as well as external storage) and up to 100 W of electrical power over a single cable.

In fact, Thunderbolt 3 also supports both USB 3.1 (and earlier standards) as well as PCI-Express and DisplayPort, all over that same reversible USB Type C connector. At long last, we have the one connector to rule them all. What that means is we’ll start to see PCs with several USB type C connectors, and we’ll eventually be able to connect them to just about any PC peripheral imaginable (and a few we haven’t been able to imagine). In the interim, yes, we’ll have to likely deal with dongles, but a better choice will be docks that have a Thunderbolt 3.0-enabled connection to a PC on one side, and just about every other PC connector available on the other.

One of the new capabilities this new connector enables is the ability to add an external graphics card to a notebook or small desktop PC. The speed of the connector, support for PCI Express, and new drivers from AMD that can enable hot plugging or unplugging all work together to bring this new capability to life.

Of course, to get all these new capabilities—particularly biometric authentication and Thunderbolt 3.0 support—will require new hardware, in addition to Windows 10. However, starting this fall, I think we’re going to have some of the most interesting new PCs and some of the most compelling reasons to upgrade we’ve seen in a very long time. And, for a lot of people, that really does matter.

While there are never-ending debates about the potential size of the market opportunity for the Internet of Things (IOT), most everyone will agree that it’s going to be a relatively large number, both in terms of units and revenues.

However, there’s another aspect of the IOT market that isn’t discussed as much, but in my mind, is equally as certain: at every level imaginable, the IOT market is wide open. From semiconductor architectures to semiconductor makers, operating systems, sensor makers, device makers, application providers, data analysis tools, and on and on, there are few, if any, dominant players in IOT. Instead, there’s opportunity for a lot of different companies—both large and small— to try and stake a claim in these new markets and to find traction in a variety of IOT sub-segments. In fact, this is one of the reasons so many companies are now talking about IOT—they clearly see that they have a chance to carve out some solid business for themselves.

In the case of CPUs, not only will we see big players like Intel continue to build on their strength in the embedded space, but we’ll also see that AMD and several different ARM licensees, such as Broadcom, Marvell, STMicro and Atmel (among many others) will likely capture many types of design wins. At the same time, the IOT market is also very well-suited for MIPS architectures. With the infusion of money and support from parent company Imagination Technologies, MIPS licensees such as Freescale and NXP (both of whom also support ARM) are also likely to find success as well. At the end of the day, much of the success for CPU, modem and other semiconductor providers will be determined by the suite of tools they can offer (or partner with others to offer) in order to enable fast, efficient and, most importantly, secure IOT product development.

In the case of operating systems, Google’s rumored version of Android for IOT (code-named Brillo) is likely to have some impact, but so will Windows 10 given Microsoft has announced a version of their new OS specifically for IOT applications. At the same time, there will probably be even bigger numbers for basic real-time operating systems (RTOS) from companies like Blackberry (their QNX platform), as well as Intel’s WindRiver division, and loads of other smaller companies that we’ve likely never heard of. Similar to the chipmakers, the most powerful tools won’t necessarily win in IOT, because the compute and software requirements for IOT applications are generally very modest. Instead, success will be determined by the quality of tools that the platform makers can offer.[pullquote]The most powerful tools won’t necessarily win in IOT, because the compute and software requirements for IOT applications are generally very modest.”[/pullquote]

Part of the reason for this wide open opportunity in IOT is because the market for it is still very young. As it begins to mature, we’ll likely see a few larger players start to take a bigger role. Another reason for this Wild West-type mentality is because the IOT opportunity is so diverse. As I’ve written previously, the IOT market is really a loose federation of different opportunities. From embedded industrial applications that have existed for years (but only recently have been renamed IOT), to transportation and logistics businesses, to smart meters and utility applications, through farming, connected cars, smart home devices and, depending on your definition, even smart wearables, there’s an enormous range of IOT segments.

This represents a very large pie for companies to battle over—at least in theory. The problem is that it’s likely to end up being played out as hundreds of small skirmishes across an equally large number of different vertical applications, very few of which turn out to be particularly impressive from a revenue perspective. So, I think companies need to be realistic in setting their expectations about how much revenue they can generate from these IOT opportunities, particularly in the near term.

Over time, I believe the IOT market will prove to be extremely important, and given that we are in its early days, it certainly makes sense for a lot of companies to pursue it—especially in an effort to lay claim to their share of this clearly unclaimed territory. As we start to hear more vendors’ grandiose claims about striking gold in these undiscovered new lands, however, it’s best to take these potential prospects’ claims with a grain of salt.

Walking the packed grounds of the San Mateo County Fairgrounds this past weekend with my son to attend the 10^th anniversary edition of the Bay Area Maker Faire, I couldn’t help thinking I was seeing a vision of the future.

Everywhere I turned there were interesting, creative, thoughtful, silly, playful (and every other kind of adjective you can think of) displays of people’s creativity. The vast majority had some kind of tech-related angle to them but, in most cases, the technology was subsumed into the overall message of what was being demonstrated. It wasn’t tech for tech’s sake, but rather, technology used for the purpose of enabling someone’s vision of what they wanted to create.

Interestingly, while there were a few booths from big name semiconductor vendors, it wasn’t a world dominated by big computers or small-screen computers made by large conglomerates either. Instead, the fairgrounds were filled with home-built inventions, artwork, and ideas driven, for the most part, by very simple technologies: Arduino boards, Raspberry Pis, Beagle Boards, and lots of other microcontrollers.

These circuit boards don’t offer anywhere near the processing power of your smartphone—frankly, they aren’t much more powerful than a fancy desktop calculator—yet, they drove interactive art installations, toys, craft creation, music production, robots, drones, food monitoring, home control and just about any other kind of application you could possibly think of.

All of which made me start to realize—and appreciate—how much can still be done with even the simplest of computing technologies. All it takes is the interest, drive and creativity of individuals to leverage these boards—and the great ecosystem of software tools, hardware add-ons (often called “shields”), and published how-to materials—to generate a dizzying array of devices and applications.

In many ways, you could argue the Maker Movement—which may not have been started by the Maker Faires, but has certainly grown tremendously because of them—highlight a sort of retro view of the future. (There’s a reason why SteamPunk-inspired fashion and creations are so popular at the Maker Faire.) In some instances, there is a kind of odd mix of older technology with newer ideas, as well as the desire to turn even the simplest of items (or even “found” items) into something much more than they were originally intended.

Seeing various types of “vehicles” or art installations around the Faire made with junk metal, yet blended with some kind of technology to give them a new lease on life, for example, is not how many people might initially picture the future (no autonomous driving systems here), yet it seems to be the norm at the Maker Faire.[pullquote]Projects at the Maker Faire feel like people taking control of the technology, instead of the technology taking control of us, as so often seems to be the case these days.”[/pullquote]

What’s particularly encouraging and enlightening about the Maker movement is it highlights the impact individuals, or small groups of people, can have and what they can achieve with technology. In a sense, it feels like people taking control of the technology, instead of the technology taking control of us, as so often seems to be the case these days.

Even better, the creative work is being done by an enormous range of individuals, all within the confines of a very supportive community. There were numerous booths around this year’s Faire sponsored by elementary schools, and even individual children (with their parents, of course), in addition to grizzled, grey-bearded garage hackers, all showing off their creations.

There were all kinds of educational sessions and workshops, as well as lots of questions being answered at individual booths about how things were done, what approaches to take, what types of things were possible, and so on. There was a palpable sense of sharing and the desire to pass on people’s skills and expertise to the community at large.

All told, it was an impressive, inspiring event—though a bit of a sensory overload, to be honest—that offers tremendous hope for how technology can be adapted by individuals into their lives, all the while offering a fun, creative outlet. If that’s not an inspiring view of the future, I don’t know what is.

Trying to think about one of the hottest trends sweeping the tech industry—IoT, or the Internet of Things—has me a bit befuddled to be honest. On the one hand, I understand the conceptual potential of a world where everything is connected and where we’re able to glean a wealth of useful insights from the data pumped out by the devices that form part of this all-encompassing network.

On the other hand, the nearly overwhelming technical, security, and legal hassles of making all the connections work in this vision of an internet-on-steroids seem pretty difficult to overcome. Part of the problem is, in many ways, talking about the Internet of Things as a conceptual whole is a useless exercise. There’s no real Internet of Everything, or Internet of Things (why does the Internet need “things” anyway?), but instead a variety of specific applications that involve putting intelligence, sensors and connectivity into certain devices that can perform specific, useful functions.

Another problem is there’s a tendency to overanalyze and overcomplicate what IoT applications actually are or should be. At this point, I’d argue many people perceive IoT as being an extraordinarily complex combination of devices, services, business models, value equations, etc. In fact, the big IoT visions many vendors and analyst firms are touting seem dependent on creating this vague sense of something that, I’d argue, doesn’t necessarily amount to anything.[pullquote]The big IoT visions that many vendors and analyst firms are touting seem dependent on creating this vague sense of something that, I’d argue, doesn’t necessarily amount to anything.”[/pullquote]

In some cases, these visions are also based on false presumptions around the inherent value of data and connectivity. I believe we need to think about some of these key premises in a different way. Specifically:

• Data does not equal information
• Not all information is actually useful
• Connectivity doesn’t inherently make something better

On their own, most of these statements are fairly obvious, yet it seems like many early efforts to create products that fit into the Internet of Things or Internet of Everything world seem to ignore at least one (if not all) of these precepts. How many different “smart objects” have we heard or read about lately that just make you scratch your head wondering what they’re really good for or who would actually use them?

Similarly, much of the vision around the opportunities for Internet of Things-type applications ignores these basic principles. To be clear, data, connectivity, sensors, and embedded intelligence can be incredibly valuable, and there are some significant business opportunities in the commercial and consumer markets to create products and services that leverage these capabilities. However, the fundamental driving principle that needs to be at the heart of these efforts is what I call “useful simplicity.” There needs to be a clear benefit to end users that helps them achieve something genuinely useful in a simple, convenient way.

Perhaps because that idea is so obvious, I often feel there are efforts made to obfuscate these basic principles and complicate ideas to make them sound more sophisticated. I guess the justification is this will provide a more complex business model and, therefore, higher value.

To me, both the challenge and opportunity behind IoT-type products and applications is crystal clear. Companies need to motivate potential users to purchase products or services because they offer a simple, clear, useful value. Unfortunately, in the often muddled world of IoT, that’s not always as easy as it sounds.

Politics and religion are supposed to be two hot button topics you should avoid if you want to prevent arguments with friends, family and co-workers, but I think we can now add a third to that list: wearables. From the Apple Watch to Microsoft’s HoloLens, the FitBit to the Pebble, everyone seems to have an opinion on these devices and, in many cases, they aren’t lightly held.

The highly charged nature of people’s views on these devices is at least partially due to all the attention they’ve received. Regardless of the media platform or its primary focus, it seems like nearly every Tom, Dick, and Jane wants to weigh in on why these devices are, or are not, the greatest thing since sliced bread.

For those in the tech business, the interest level is even more acute. With the traditional device markets—PCs, tablets and smartphones—all starting to show signs of maturity and saturation, there’s a strong focus on finding the next growth opportunity for device makers, component suppliers, and lots of other companies in the technology hardware supply chain. Many are looking to wearables as the next big thing.

Unfortunately, a simple analysis of where the industry stands right now suggests it still has a long way to go in achieving that goal. Yes, we’ve seen some interesting and exciting new products and it’s clear we’re still in the early days of product evolution for many of these categories. However, it’s also undeniably true wearables, as a whole, have yet to light the world on fire.

Hope springs eternal, though—especially in the tech business—and the reality is we are starting to see some interesting and compelling applications, which suggest there could be a reasonable opportunity for wearables. What we’re also starting to see, however, is a number of shifts in expectations within the category. Like many new and highly dynamic markets, the wearables business continues to twist and turn, adding new layers of complexity that inspire different ways of viewing and understanding practically every day.[pullquote]Like many new and highly dynamic markets, the wearables business continues to twist and turn, adding new layers of complexity that inspire different ways of viewing and understanding practically every day.”[/pullquote]

For example, instead of viewing wearables as pure standalone devices, many are starting to see them primarily as accessories to other devices. Even the standalone wearables are increasingly being positioned as devices you wear and use only for certain, relatively short periods of time. In either case, the perceived value and likely, the expected price points, could end up being lower than initially thought. For many people, they will be “nice-to-have” devices instead of “need-to-have.”

Target markets and business models for wearables are also starting to shift. While most of the early focus has been on consumers, there’s an increasing recognition of a good opportunity in business and enterprise, particularly within certain vertical industries. In addition, given the lower cost and power requirements of next generation cellular radios, there’s a small, but increasing opportunity for connected wearables, especially in business.

All of these developments, and many others, helped drive the third iteration of the TECHnalysis Research Smart Wearables market forecast. In the short term, our view continues to be the market opportunity remains modest, with total worldwide unit sales of approximately 48.3 million for 2015 and revenues of just under $12.6 billion. By 2020, however, we expect units will more than triple to 175 million and revenues will grow to about $31.5 billion. As a point of reference, our forecast for the tablet market in 2020 is about 208 million units and revenues of $50.9 billion.

The chart below shows the total smart wearables unit forecast split by category through 2020. As you can see, smartwatches are expected to remain the largest category through the forecast period, but headworn wearables such as HoloLens and future iterations of Google Glass will grow throughout the forecast period.

©2015, TECHnalysis Research

On a revenue basis, smart glasses are expected to slightly surpass smartwatches by 2020 because of higher average selling prices. From a consumer/commercial perspective, the consumer market is expected to retain about 89% of total units by the end of the forecast period in 2020, but the commercial market is expected to grab over 34% of total revenues by then.

The bottom line is we’re still in the early days of wearables and there is still a lot of growth left in front of them. Plus, the market will undoubtedly evolve in a number of exciting new ways by the end of the decade. Nevertheless, it’s also important to bear in mind wearables aren’t likely to provide the kind of explosive growth many in the tech industry hope they will. It all boils down to having the right set of expectations.

You can read more about the TECHnalysis Research Wearables Forecast report here.

Like many aspects of the tech business, the world of devices is driven by a number of simultaneous, but sometimes conflicting, trends. For years, much of the focus in devices was centered on which device would “win”. Somehow, the idea became widespread that, in order for one device to win, others had to lose. As a result, we saw things like PCs being pitted against tablets in battles for the top device. But then, as smartphones started getting more powerful and endowed with larger screens, they became the one device to rule them all.

Several years into these battles, it’s obvious they were a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world and understanding how the industry has evolved. Instead, it’s increasingly important to look at different combinations of devices and figure out which types of devices work well in tandem.

From that perspective, it seems abundantly clear the most compelling set of devices for many individuals is a large screen, touch-enabled smartphone and a thin, lightweight 12-13” screen notebook (preferably with touch as well). Whether in a business environment or for personal usage, this combination seems to be the “dream team” of devices, offering access to virtually any type of application, information or experience in virtually any environment. From real time social media and media consumption of all sorts, to document creation, information access, data analysis, messaging—it’s hard to imagine what you can’t do with these two devices.[pullquote]The most compelling set of devices for many individuals is a large screen, touch-enabled smartphone and a thin, lightweight 12-13” screen notebook, preferably with touch as well.” [/pullquote]

Much of these results are due to the individual capabilities of each of the devices but, in conjunction with a data tethering package on your smartphone, you can also use the two together as a very effective package. Most notably, you can use your notebook in any environment you’d want, without the expense and hassle of paying for an extra modem and an extra data plan. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve enabled the personal hotspot feature on a smartphone to get access to email or a web site on my notebook. Conversely, there are often times I discover things first on my smartphone but want to access information in more detail on a larger screen on my notebook. And yes, believe it or not, there are still a reasonable number of web sites out there that only work to their full ability on a PC.

When tablets first hit the market, there were many who somehow thought one device was in fact going to offer the best of both worlds—the mobility and connectivity of a smartphone with the large screen of a notebook. As time has gone on, however, it’s become clear this view of the tablet did not come to pass. Tablets certainly have their roles, but they haven’t been able to take on that idealized vision of the single device, or even the primary device.

As the results from yesterday’s amazing Apple quarterly earnings clearly illustrated, large smartphones like the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are driving enormous changes in the market and it’s PCs (or in Apple’s case, Macs) that are maintaining a key role as well. Tablets like the iPad, on the other hand, are now suffering through a tough decline. In fact, the rate of iPad’s sales decline is now on the increase. While Tim Cook remains optimistic for a turn-around, eight straight quarters of decline is pretty hard to ignore, and even he acknowledged the cannibalization of iPad sales by both larger iPhones and thinner Macs. Of course, in Apple’s case, that’s not really a terrible thing, as they generally make better profits on iPhones and Macs than they do iPads anyway.

Longer term, I still believe there are fundamental challenges facing the tablet market. However, given the potential benefits larger smartphones and thinner notebooks working in tandem can bring to many people, I’m still reasonably optimistic about the PC market’s future. Clearly, it will suffer through some declines in the short term but, by being seen, understood, and positioned as part of a device “dream team,” I think there are better opportunities than many currently believe.