8 ms·

It is very amusing to see him predict that internet of things will "broaden" while wearables will "fizzle". He even links to an example of how silly an idea thi

It is very amusing to see him predict that internet of things will "broaden" while wearables will "fizzle". He even links to an example of how silly an idea this is: http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/intel-smart-baby-onesie/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/intel-smart-baby-onesie/ A watch that isn't a great computer, and doesn't work well as a watch, isn't going to be a great product. However there are so many other kinds of wearables that we can do well with modern technology. One kind of wearable technology that we have now and are going to see a lot more of this year is the body camera.

bcantrill 12y ago
I probably wasn't sufficiently explicit, but that was actually my point: that IoT would divorce itself from wearable computing -- with the latter being a fizzling fad but the former being a profound change in nearly every industrial activity (in my opinion). For example, GE has a bunch of interesting things going on in this space[1] -- stuff that I think is much more real and much more profound than wearable computing (at least in 2015). [1] http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-make-the-world-1-better#2 http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-ma...
- c3RlcGhlbnI_ 12y ago
  I did not argue that the IoT won't expand dramatically, or even that it is not the more important of the two technologies. However my point is that wearable computing can't possibly divorce itself from from the IoT. Any wearable object with the ability to collect and upload data falls into both categories. By that token, if wearable computing is not going to break away as its own thing, it will just become a small part of the internet of things. Though I do suppose that the trend of pretending we can magically fit a smartphone into a watch or a pair of glasses is going to fizzle. However that was never really more that fantasy(I mean Google X is about taking technology they expect to have 10 years in the future and trying to build it now). In the meantime the more modest wearable computing devices we can actually build(like smart onesies and smart insulin pumps) have been continuing their steadily accelerating progress along with the rest of the IoT.

bcantrill 12y ago

I probably wasn't sufficiently explicit, but that was actually my point: that IoT would divorce itself from wearable computing -- with the latter being a fizzling fad but the former being a profound change in nearly every industrial activity (in my opinion). For example, GE has a bunch of interesting things going on in this space[1] -- stuff that I think is much more real and much more profound than wearable computing (at least in 2015). [1] http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-make-the-world-1-better#2 http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-ma...

c3RlcGhlbnI_ 12y ago
I did not argue that the IoT won't expand dramatically, or even that it is not the more important of the two technologies. However my point is that wearable computing can't possibly divorce itself from from the IoT. Any wearable object with the ability to collect and upload data falls into both categories. By that token, if wearable computing is not going to break away as its own thing, it will just become a small part of the internet of things. Though I do suppose that the trend of pretending we can magically fit a smartphone into a watch or a pair of glasses is going to fizzle. However that was never really more that fantasy(I mean Google X is about taking technology they expect to have 10 years in the future and trying to build it now). In the meantime the more modest wearable computing devices we can actually build(like smart onesies and smart insulin pumps) have been continuing their steadily accelerating progress along with the rest of the IoT.