Nick Hunn, author and creator of the blog – Creative Connectivity, has a neat approach to
determine the volume projections of IoT node devices (he focuses on Bluetooth Smart technology).
His analysis forecasts a market value based on Bluetooth smart enabled accessories being tied to applications on smart phones
and tablets – hence the term appcessories. Appcessories provide opportunity for revenue and
product differentiation previously only afforded by new platforms (more expensive to create).
This trend is projected to start off with Bluetooth smart enabled traditional accessories (styli,
mice, key boards) and then gradually transition to accessories that support new and innovative
applications. In 2014 these devices will be desirable objects (price point of about 50$) and
would eventually (after novelty wears off) would be more utilitarian. As the price of silicon
goes down these devices will become ubiquitous.
To Ubiquity and Beyond - Bluetooth Smart and the Growth of Appcessories | Creative Connectivity
The specified item was not found.
This is interesting, but I am intersted in what's left for BT Smart once you subtract out accessories which already use regular BT, e.g. mice and keyboards are already account for as Styli, mice, keyboards and agree will transition to BT smart, but that just implies BT Smart cannibalizing old BT. I am interested to hear what are the new incremental BT smart devices coming out that will drive appcesories
Clearly a tough topic. Some considerations
- Bluetooth will go everywhere. Vehicles, home hubs, PCs. So you need to look beyond phones to generate TAM
- I conscribe to the camp that the driver will be end companies that hand out wearables. If you get a 15% on health insurance if you wear something, would you wear it? Maybe.
- money will be made on services out in time. If insurance vompanies, banks etc subsidize hardware, that part of value chain will be squeezed
- these things always take longer than expected. Apps are key and this is still early ( although the promise by google of android for wearables is a great step)
Bluetooth Smart, by itself is incompatible with a standard Bluetooth chip - it is a completely new radio and protocol stack (Dual mode chips offer interoperability). It will address different applications and markets. For starters, it does not support voice (it is data only). It is particularly suited for those devices that need to transfer very small quantity of data, and do so within relatively short ranges. Bluetooth Smart substantially reduces Classic Bluetooth’s peak, average, and idle mode power consumption, with very high energy efficiencies. The extremely low currents of Bluetooth Low energy chipsets, enable these radios to work with very small battery power sources for a year and more. This new slew of applications forming the fabric of IoT need battery operated devices that can last longer. This cannot be addressed by the Classic Bluetooth devices. At the same time, most of the HS and Audio functions that the current Classic Bluetooth technology caters to cannot be addressed by Bluetooth Smart.
So, yes there will be some cannibalization but most of the growth will come from new applications that this low power technology will foster.
And the new applications are just limited by the developers imagination and they are sprouting every day in areas of health, sports/fitness, smart homes, smart energy, automotive, consumer goods to name a few.....lots of companies are making devices, many more since this paper was released (Just a name a few - Stick N Find, Wimoto, Scanadu, CSR, Tile, Parrot, August, Goji, Anki, Propeller health, paypal, Philips, retail & ibeacon, etc...)
The fear is that these devices may just end their lives as novelty items. Besides addressing security and distribution issues, what is key is building a services model around them -- some one needs to make money to make sure these devices stick around
Thanks for your very clear explanations of the main differences between the classic Bluetooth and the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)!
I hadn't heard the name of Bluetooth Smart before. Is there one term more commonly used than the other?
I use a Fitbit One (with an ARM Cortex-M3, of course) which I believe uses BLE and I was surprised by its range. I can leave it at the furthest corner of the house and I can still pick up the signal through concrete floor and walls. Maybe my house is too small...
Thanks albanrampon.
Bluetooth Low Energy and Bluetooth Smart are the same. Bluetooth Smart is the 'Marketing name' for Bluetooth Low Energy and is being heavily pushed by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. I think Bluetooth Smart will become the more prevalent usage in the future....(marketing always wins)
Haha, Your observation regarding the Fitbit is right (not the part about your house being small, but that the range is higher:))
Bluetooth Smart (Bluetooth Low Energy) has a higher range (theoretically 200 feet) than Bluetooth Classic (30 feet).