A Tale of two Thermostats

Once upon a time there was a start-up in California that thought that the world needed a smarter thermostat. Headed up by some ex-Apple executives, they raised over $80 million for their company and three years later sold it for $3.2 billion. That company is Nest Labs.

Four years before Nest was formed, two experienced technology start-up executives in Cambridge thought that the world would benefit from energy use reduction. Their solution was to design a smart in-home display which showed householders how much energy they were using. They’ve sold almost 1.5 million of these. From that experience they also decided that the world needed a smarter thermostat. Because they had limited funds to complete its development (largely because DECC had constantly delayed the UK smart metering market for their IHDs), they decided to use the crowdfunding site Kickstarter to raise enough to make the first prototypes. They didn’t raise $3.2 billion. They didn’t raise $80 million. They only just scraped together $32,000 before the Kickstarter campaign finished. To put it into perspective, that’s equivalent to the UK retail cost of just 80 of Nest’s smart thermostats. This company is GEO.

I don’t know whether GEO’s smart thermostat – called Cosy, is any better or worse than Nest’s. They both look attractive, competent products from companies that know what they’re doing. GEO’s appears better suited for a Northern European climate, where most energy expenditure goes on heating in winter. Nest’s is probably better for homes with air conditioning as well. But the one hundred thousand times difference between $32k and $3.2 billion that investors are prepared to put into two different smart thermostat companies suggests that certain sectors of the smart thermostat market may be at serious risk of overheating.

Read More

Hearables – the new Wearables.

There’s a new bubble in technology – the wristband. Fuelled by Nike’s success, Jawbone’s on the Up, Polar’s in the Loop, Sony’s trying to Force its way into the game, while Fitbit’s aiming to stay as number One. (If you’ve ever wondered how branding executives choose their product names, that’s how.) Analysts are falling over each other to estimate how large the market will be by 2018. They’re wetting themselves at the prospect of smart watches, seeing the wrist as the saviour of the high tech industry now that smartphones have lost their Shine. (Which has nothing to do with the wrist, but that’s another story.) Currently Credit Suisse holds the prize for unwarranted optimism with a prediction of a market value of up to $50 billion for wearables in 2018. I think they’ve all missed the largest potential market for wearables – a category I’m going to call Hearables. The ear is the new wrist.

Analysts making these predictions almost invariably assume the wearable market is intrinsically linked with the smartphone market – currently around a billion units per year and worth over $250bn. To them, wearable seems to be mostly about smart watches and phones which extend small parts of the phone experience to something we wear. They ignore the fact that we still purchase smartphones to make calls. All of those calls send audio to our ears. As well as voice, hundreds of millions of people use their phones for music, as evidenced by the ubiquitous cables trailing from ears. Sound drives the bulk of our technology use and earbuds are the only piece of wearable tech to have gained ubiquity and social acceptance. These devices are about to undergo a revolution in capability, getting rid of their cables and giving them the opportunity to be the standard bearer for wearable technology.

I’m currently writing a new market forecast report for connected consumer wearable technology. It argues that the biggest potential market for connected wearables will not be for devices we put on our wrists, but the ones we put in our ears. By 2018 it suggests that we’ll be spending over $5billion on Hearables. Let me know if you’d like a copy of the report when it’s complete.

Read More