Yesterday in my Digital Media class I showed students several videos about the Internet of Things. The first I showed them was an explanation from IBM, produced in 2010. The second was a recent video from the Shots of Awe channel on YouTube. We compared the differences and similarities of the two videos. Some were obviousIBM put a premium on data, while Jason Silva focused on the impact the Internet of Things would have on us. One key similarity was the highly positive narrative about IoT. <\/p>\n
The discussion, as it often does whenever I talk to my undergrad students, eventually led back to how to balance that future vision of machine- and data-driven lives with what it means to be human. One student pointed to the movie Interstellar (which I havent seen) and noted that there was a storywhere the machines and humans worked well together, which seemed more realistic to her than robot overload tropes.Others worried about security and the increasing reliance on energy for our functionality. Some worried about losing basic human capabilitiesdeep reading, map-reading, analog conversation, etc.butother students argued this was more of a forecast concern than reality. <\/p>\n
In the end, they were more skeptical of the hype, on either side of the discussion, than they were with possibility of smart appliances surrounding our lives. <\/p>\n
All thatmatches up well with a study about IoT, released yesterday by Affinnova, a Massachusetts-based consulting and research firm owned by Nielsen. Most of my students had maybe heard the term, but didnt know much about the Internet of Things. Affinnova noted from a previous study by Acquity Groupthatonly 4 percent owned an IoT device and 87 percent said they never heard the term, as of this year. This might surprise tech-saturated folks, but it says something about howdisconnected the cutting edge gets with life as most people live it. <\/p>\n
Fine, but what about the concept itself? Dont most people want their lives to get technologically smarter?The large consensuswas ehhh? From the study: <\/p>\n
92 percent say its very difficult to pinpoint what theyd want from smart objects, but feel that theyll know it when they see it. This means traditional consumer surveys are likely to provide very limited insight, leaving companies unsure about which features to include and how to communicate their value. <\/p>\n
What is useful about this study is that it really wasnt just another consumer survey. Affinnovaused four steps to better understand where we are with things of the Internet. First they identified different use concepts, then narrowed use cases down to four: smartlight bulbs, scales, tap water filters and food packaging. Third, 500 participants were asked to scrutinize elements (descriptors, features, claims, benefits and taglines) of the smart devices and finally 500 participants answered questions about, attitudes toward possibilities for the Internet of Things, motivations, barriers, product preferences, demographics and psychographics. <\/p>\n
So what did they find? Four clear themesemerged, according to the researchers. Thethemes together sound, to me, like an enthusiasm gap between futurists\/developers and potential users. From the report: <\/p>\n
Slow down, future: some consumers fear loss of control. Despite what one might think, consumers are shying away from the captivating possibilities of a fully automated life. <\/p>\n
I can be in two places at once! Being able to access or control objects remotely is the most desired functionality for smart products with 53 percent of consumers expressing interest. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More here:<\/p>\n
Study: The Internet of Things Has An Enthusiasm Gap<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yesterday in my Digital Media class I showed students several videos about the Internet of Things. The first I showed them was an explanation from IBM, produced in 2010 Continue reading