Wearable Tech - What and When?
Wearable Tech - What and When? by Michael F. Finneran
This week I hosted the weekly podcast on the subject of the Expanding World of Mobility with several of my UCStrategies cohorts, and one of the topics we got into was the developing area of mobile peripherals or “wearable technologies.” As it turns out, TMC.Net was hosting the Wearable Tech Expo in New York this week and I had the chance to attend. What I came away with was a pile of interesting ideas and a deeper appreciation of the challenges involved in coming up with the “next big thing.”
Last year, the Boy Genius Report pegged the value of the smartphone accessories market at $20 billion with most of that going to things like Bluetooth headsets, chargers and cases. In her opening keynote, Jennifer Darmour, CEO of wearable design firm Electricfoxy cited the wearables market currently at around $750 million but expected to grow to $50 billion by 2016. A lot of that is fueled by expectations of mass-market wearables like Google Glass and the much anticipated iWatch from Apple. Ms. Darmour’s company makes things like a sensor-infused pilates suit called the Move that helps the wearer develop more precise movements by haptic feedback.
Currently the wearables market is split among a number of product categories and is dominated by the ubiquitous Bluetooth headset; not surprisingly Plantronics was one of the show’s sponsors and was showing off its Voyager Legend Headset that can sync to multiple devices (e.g. smartphone, desk set, softphone, etc.). It also features sensors that can tell when the user is wearing it, and an API to develop customized applications like signaling a user’s PC to pull up a caller’s CRM record even if they receive a call from them on their mobile.
Beyond headsets, the other major markets for wearables would include:
Each one of these share some common challenges linked to size and weight that impact things like battery life and the wireless options that can be supported; most wearables depend on Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for the communications interface. However, each also faces some significant challenges in becoming a true mass-market phenomenon. Take Google Glass. Right off the bat, the unique look makes a statement about the wearer’s personality – I’m a Google Glass Guy/Gal. Also, there are questions around whether requiring a user to look up to see the screen is a good design choice. And SNL did a hilarious rap on it during a Weekend Update segment.
Most participants seemed to agree that the smartwatch had the best chance for success given the almost universal acceptance of the wristwatch, though a lot of young people have given up on watches because they get the time off their smartphones. While it still has some wrinkles to iron out, the Pebble smartwatch has generally been well received.
There are quite a number of devices aimed at athletes and the fitness conscious, but they will likely face some significant challenges. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 80% of adults don’t get their recommended exercise. The marketing photos for all of these activity monitors are accurate in the fact that they show people who are remarkably fit – I’m talking gals with six-packs! I wonder if some middle-aged guy who’s got a “keg” rather than a “six-pack” is going to want this thing nagging him to hit the treadmill.
The most high-end athletic product described was Adidas’ miCoach Elite. As Qaizar Hassonjee, Adidas VP of Innovation for Wearable Sports Electronics described it, the system that is first being tried for soccer teams is based on special shirts with built-in (literally “woven in”) sensors and a small GPS-enabled transmitter that fits in a pocket between the player’s shoulders. The package measures speed, distance, position, heart rate, and acceleration/deceleration, and transmits it to a battery-powered base station on the sidelines. Using an iPad, fitness coaches can view the raw data, and Adidas also provides a couple of composite measures called “Cardio” and “Power” that is produced by an algorithm the company developed. The full system runs about $100,000 to $150,000 (i.e. don’t expect to see this on your kid’s soccer team), but it is apparently being used by all of the MLS teams and they are looking to expand into other sports.
Monisha Perkash, CEO of start-up Lumo Body Tech, was showing off a much less elegant though eminently practical wearable device called the LUMOback. She opened her presentation with the unforgettable line, “Sitting is the new smoking,” and went on to describe how all of our marvelous technologies have resulted in a more sedentary lifestyle and the health impact of poor posture. Her $149 LUMOback is a simple elastic belt-like device you wear under your shirt and it can sense whether you’re standing or sitting and vibrates if you slouch. There’s also an interface to a smartphone to download statistics, but the big value seems to be the reminder to “straighten up!”
LUMOback
Clearly the most mind-blowing device discussed was the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis from a company called Second Sight. According to Jim Little, Second Sight’s VP of Implant R&D, this device literally gives sight to the blind. First off, it doesn’t address all causes of blindness; it’s aimed at those with macular degeneration (about 2 million Americans) and retinitis pigmentosa (about 100,000 Americans). In a surgical procedure, a device is implanted in the eye and connected to the optic nerve. The user wears a pair of glasses with a camera on them that wirelessly transmits data to the implanted device that in turn passes it to the optic nerve; the implant is recharged with an inductive coupling device.
Argus II Retinal Prosthesis
The result is not real “sight,” but people who were totally blind can now can see light, shapes, and movement; some can even recognize characters or locate a door. Mr. Little showed a series of videos of patients all of whom still needed the red-and-white cane, but they were able to see people moving around them, recognize when they came to a curb, and things like that. There was even a grandma shooting baskets!
Motorola Solutions (the part of Motorola Google didn’t buy) was showing off an industrial strength wearable computer called the HC1 designed for field service and public safety applications; many of the functions are controlled by gestures and voice commands. Clearly not a consumer device; comparing the HC1 to Google Glass is like comparing an Osborne 1 to an iPhone. Unlike Google Glass, the HC1 has the viewer positioned so the user looks down rather than up, and the case includes a computer running a version of Windows CE.
The Motorola Solutions HC1
All in all there were dozens of unique ideas on display, but it appeared that the most interesting solutions were purpose-built, specialized, and expensive. The Holy Grail and the biggest question in all of this was what the “next big thing” was going to be and who was going to come up with it? The “next big thing” is defined as the next techno-gadget that everyone but everyone was going to want. The one who seemed to have the clearest vision of what that “next big thing” would have to incorporate was Ms. Darmour of Electricfoxy, who identified three key characteristics: beautiful, meaningful, and “periphery,” meaning “using the body as interface.”
Still there’s a major step between articulating those characteristics and developing a product that incorporates them and appeals to a mass audience. I doubt I’m going to come up with it, but I hope I’ll be able to recognize it when I see it!
Also on UCStrategies.com on this topic: