Is Keeping Things Simple the Wearable Industry’s Way Forward?

origami_potato/Flickr

Humans have a natural characteristic of living inside their own head and think that the way it works in their head is similar to how it works in someone else’s head. Chances are that the person who will read this article belongs to the 5% of people who naturally feel excited about the future, when it comes to technology and the positive impact it will have in their daily lives. The other 95% are the ones that get introverted at hearing the word “technology”. It is a word that still scares the hell out of most people and in my opinion their angst is kind of valid.

When it comes to providing information to the 95%, many businesses have been known to turn to Strategy Analytics. They are a service that helps companies chart prosperous routes through the complex technology markets. So I wonder, based on their Wearable Device Ecosystem (WDE) model, should they have the responsibility of strategizing the wearable tech market? The Strategy Analytic service claims to take a more holistic view of the wearable market, which in my opinion does not take into account whether a consumer will actually be comfortable enough to use the new technology. The more and more I think about it, the more I am beginning to realize that when it comes to the Wearable Tech industry, the “eco” in ecosystem needs some self-reflecting.

Taking the Angst Out of Tech

As technology grows, it continues to accelerate at a pace where it is getting more and more confusing to the 95%. So it is time to make a case. I feel that every chance to keep things simple needs to be grabbed with both hands. This should quickly increase the way consumers fully adapt to buying and wearing wearable devices. Executing this tactic can actually be a noble task if consumers end up being more comfortable with technology. Another tactic that could be used is adding some empathy towards the approach because it could assist in the positive growth of the unstoppable tech beast.

For some time now the focus has been on how to market wearables. It seems that regardless of the limitations one only has to look at where the industry is today. There are plenty of signals out there that will make one think; are we asking the right questions on our quest? I am beginning to get the feeling that at this point Wearables are kind of trying hard to solve a problem that isn’t really there.

Change takes time, but up until this day I really have not seen any prototype devices that have convinced me that they work towards minimizing the prospect of them ending up in the kitchen drawer. To be honest, I am done reading reports about how million devices are predicted to be shipped by 2020. I would rather read an in-depth survey telling me what could be done to take away the skepticism that lives among so many because doing so will ensure that technology will continue to serve a purpose by getting the remaining 95% on board. I strongly believe that technology should have a positive impact but I do wonder if the industry is taking a smart approach to achieve this.

Wearables, Hearables, Nearables

How can we go about keeping things simple? Well it starts with not getting carried away by trying to reinvent new category names. This marketing tactic has been and continues to be used to try and make the headlines. Making up words like “Skinnables,” “Implantables” or even “Invisibles” is done so as to give the device some attention and some real viralability. Bringing up the question, wouldn’t it be better to keep the category names simple? I think so.

I strongly believe in three simple categories. Everything we wear on the body or in the body should be called (1) Wearables, with the exception of one category called (2) Hearables. I believe this exception deserves its own category simply because of the level of adaption gained already and because the position on the body actually makes it a better place to measure many different physiological biometrics with greater accuracy than the wrist. The challenge for Hearables is getting the vital features into a tiny device, something that is currently being achieved by companies like Bragi and Earin, who are doing some great work.

The third and final category is a device that we cannot wear on the body or in the body. It is a device that needs to be in our physical vicinity in order to fulfill an immediate need or have some sort of purpose, this category is known as (3) Nearables (IoT). Now personally I can’t wait for the terms IoT (Internet of Things created by Kevin Ashton) or IoE (Internet of Everything created by Cisco) to become outdated and replaced by the term Nearables. I would like to use Adam Greenfield’s words in my own convenient context because again it is the language that reveals the approach.

The use of “IoT” is a great example of how an industry is explaining a top-down, expensive, tech-centered, approach creating an unlivable corporate dystopia, in this case not in our smart city but more in our smart home. You’d almost forget for whom the smart home device is made for in the first place. If the industry cares about taking the angst out of technology, they should realize that this angst would not serve a purpose when it comes to getting consumers onboard. In the end we all fear what we do not know.

So to continue, the word Nearables is a more suitable word rather than IoT or IoE. It logically encapsulates all the other devices besides Wearables and Hearables. From a marketing perspective, Nearables is derived from the word Wearables, which has had a lot of positive attention already. This, in my opinion, makes Nearables a self-explanatory word that is easier to embrace more so than IoT, making it the best way forward.

So there we have it, Wearables, Hearables and Nearables — a smart way of introducing technology to the 95%. In order to create realistic value propositions for the wearable tech industry we now only need to figure out how to ask consumers the right questions. If the battery technology makes a leap, we can then start to add some context to the collected data so the industry can put itself in a position to let the devices do the rest.

Mano ten Napel is the founder of the wearable startup Novealthy.