Silicon Labs
|
Silicon Labs Community Silicon Labs Community
  • Products
    1. 8-bit MCU
    2. 32-bit MCU
    3. Bluetooth
    4. Proprietary
    5. Wi-Fi
    6. Zigbee & Thread
    7. Z-Wave
    8. Interface
    9. Isolation
    10. Power
    11. Sensors
    12. Timing
  • Development Tools
    1. Simplicity Studio
    2. Third Party Tools
  • Expert's Corner
    1. Announcements
    2. Blog
    3. General Interest
    4. Projects
How to Buy
English
  • English
  • 简体中文
  • 日本語
//
Community // Blog

3 Obstacles to Cracking the Connected Home Market

03/75/2016 | 02:23 PM
Lance Looper
Employee

Level 5


The connected home is one of the largest, fastest-growing segments in the Internet of Things (IoT). But before the connected home makes the leap from early adopters to mainstream consumers, some important challenges need to be addressed. Questions about technology standards, business models, and data collection need to be answered in a way that will satisfy all stakeholders in the connected home ecosystem.

 

  1. Technology and Trade-Offs

A typical connected home network features one or more smart devices (possibly hundreds) connected to each other and to the Internet so that end users can control, customize and monitor their environment. Applications driving adoption include sensors, actuators and controls for security and environmental systems, entertainment consoles and TVs, and appliances.

 

These devices are capable of sharing data and commands with the rest of the home ecosystem because they integrate widely available low-power embedded controllers, wireless chips and sensors. Leading semiconductor and software suppliers already offer the mix of components and development tools that lets connected device designers and service providers avoid the risks of adopting a single standard.

Additional required technologies that support the connected home —such as operating systems, application development platforms and connectivity protocols—draw from a rich legacy of embedded industrial and mobile IoT applications, so are also readily available to developers.

 

However systems that are simple to install and manage, while power users may prefer systems that let them tweak and push the limits of what the system can deliver. The differences among home users impacts technical requirements for the installation experience, including device discovery, feature configuration and security management. 

 

Home users have a choice of suppliers to create the desired mix of do-it-yourself or do-it-for-me connected devices. Each of these stakeholders has different requirements when engaging with the home user. For example, a service provider catering to a do-it-for-me customer will be concerned about battery life in devices they install to minimize labor and replacement costs during the life of the contract, while a retailer catering to a do-it-yourself customer will emphasize a low purchase price with less concern about energy consumption and battery life.

 

  1. Balancing Business Models

In addition to user experience, there are several issues that directly affect industry stakeholders. What are the business models that let stakeholders innovate and contribute to the connected home ecosystem while providing revenue for the benefits they enable? Who owns the data collected by the connected home ecosystem, and how is that data made available to each stakeholder? Who is responsible for security? How will physical and logical security be ensured in the connected home ecosystem as well as stakeholders’ remote or cloud-based services?

 

The connected home ecosystem is different from traditional embedded systems. Each component is not isolated and devices must interoperate within the ecosystem. For example, a device such as a smart thermostat may require data from other devices, such as a mesh network of motion detectors. This is how the device makes intelligent decisions about when to dynamically adjust lighting and climate settings to appropriately meet the conditions in the environment it is monitoring and controlling.

 

There are already a variety of application frameworks, operating systems and communication protocols vying for leadership in the connected home ecosystem and it is unlikely that the market will converge to a single set of standards. What is more likely is that there will be a give and take in how each device, peripheral and hub responds to each other to protect home users’ investment and protect stakeholders from some of the risk of supporting unsuccessful standards.

 

The evolution of remote controls is an example that suggests how business models may adjust to address these issues. Remote controls have never complied with a standard form factor, key layout or command protocol. This has been a deliberate decision made by manufacturers who tightly coupled remote control designs with their products. If remote controls were interchangeable, product manufacturers would not be able to ensure the user experience, especially if a remote control from one manufacturer did not implement important capabilities of another manufacturer’s product.

 

Universal remote controls eventually came about as a workaround, with discrepancies between remote control commands and device operation typically attributed to the universal remote.

 

  1. Data Ownership and Security

Icontrol Networks’ 2015 survey of consumers considering connected home products reveals that users are more worried about the possibility of a data breach that results in their personal data being stolen than the cost of the technology. They are also fearful that their data will be collected and sold.

 

The ability for connected home devices to collect and communicate usage and sensor data to the cloud transforms them from a single user transaction to an ongoing relationship. Applying analysis to the data collected by all connected devices may allow the connected home ecosystem to deliver valuable capabilities not even imagined today. Additional benefits are possible if big data analysis can identify trends among groups of users across different homes. But to unlock this potential, stakeholders must address data ownership and security at the device, platform and service level.

 

Business models rely on the assumption that information that can be collected from connected home devices will generate additional value for the user and the stakeholder. However, business models based on analyzing this collected information must address user concerns about opting-in or out (both before and after data has been collected), offering recourse if data is lost or stolen and providing access to external audits of how stakeholders are using the information.

 

Complicating the issue are the differing views on security by connected device manufacturers. For example, a door lock manufacturer may hold significantly higher security concerns compared to a light switch manufacturer. As a result, security becomes a multi-level issue. This can include integrating security protections and hardening the chips in designs, working within standards bodies to ensure usage of appropriate security protocols in the standards, working on software implementations to ensure proper security review and hardening, and working with home users to ensure they use the appropriate level of security for their devices.

 

Taming the Connected Home

The connected home has become the fastest-growing and largest segment within the IoT, but competing requirements make succeeding in this market more complex for device and service providers to address than other IoT segments. Taming the connected home depends on an ecosystem that enables new stakeholders to thrive while adding complementary products and services that add value to consumers.

For more information about the connected home, click here.

  • Blog Posts
  • Internet of Things

Tags

  • Wireless
  • High Performance Jitter Attenuators
  • EFR32FG22 Series 2 SoCs
  • EFR32MG21 Series 2 SoCs
  • Security
  • Bluegiga Legacy Modules
  • Zigbee SDK
  • ZigBee and Thread
  • EFR32BG13 Series 1 Modules
  • Internet Infrastructure
  • Sensors
  • Wireless Xpress BGX13
  • Blue Gecko Bluetooth Low Energy SoCs
  • Z-Wave
  • Micrium OS
  • Blog Posts
  • Low Jitter Clock Generators
  • Bluetooth Classic
  • Makers
  • Flex SDK
  • Tips and Tricks
  • timing
  • Smart Cities
  • Smart Homes
  • IoT Heroes
  • Reviews
  • RAIL
  • Simplicity Studio
  • Tiny Gecko
  • EFR32MG22 Series 2 SoCs
  • Mighty Gecko SoCs
  • Timing
  • Temperature Sensors
  • Blue Gecko Bluetooth Low Energy Modules
  • Ultra Low Jitter Clock Generators
  • General Purpose Clock Generators
  • EFR32BG22 Series 2 SoCs
  • Industry 4.0
  • Giant Gecko
  • 32-bit MCUs
  • Bluetooth Low Energy
  • 32-bit MCU SDK
  • Gecko
  • Microcontrollers
  • Jitter Attenuators
  • EFR32BG21 Series 2 SoCs
  • News and Events
  • Wi-Fi
  • Bluetooth SDK
  • Community Spotlight
  • Clock Generators
  • Biometric Sensors
  • General Purpose Jitter Attenuators
  • Giant Gecko S1
  • WF200
  • Flex Gecko
  • Internet of Things
  • 8-bit MCUs
  • Wireless Jitter Attenuators
  • Isolation
  • Powered Devices
  • Power

Top Authors

  • Avatar image Siliconlabs
  • Avatar image Jackie Padgett
  • Avatar image Nari Shin
  • Avatar image lynchtron
  • Avatar image deirdrewalsh
  • Avatar image Lance Looper
  • Avatar image lethawicker

Archives

  • 2016 March
  • 2016 April
  • 2016 May
  • 2016 June
  • 2016 July
  • 2016 August
  • 2016 September
  • 2016 October
  • 2016 November
  • 2016 December
  • 2017 January
  • 2017 February
  • 2017 March
  • 2017 April
  • 2017 May
  • 2017 June
  • 2017 July
  • 2017 August
  • 2017 September
  • 2017 October
  • 2017 November
  • 2017 December
  • 2018 January
  • 2018 February
  • 2018 March
  • 2018 April
  • 2018 May
  • 2018 June
  • 2018 July
  • 2018 August
  • 2018 September
  • 2018 October
  • 2018 November
  • 2018 December
  • 2019 January
  • 2019 February
  • 2019 March
  • 2019 April
  • 2019 May
  • 2019 June
  • 2019 July
  • 2019 August
  • 2019 September
  • 2019 October
  • 2019 November
  • 2019 December
  • 2020 January
  • 2020 February
  • 2020 March
  • 2020 April
  • 2020 May
  • 2020 June
  • 2020 July
  • 2020 August
  • 2020 September
  • 2020 October
  • 2020 November
  • 2020 December
  • 2021 January
  • 2021 February
Silicon Labs
Stay Connected With Us
Plug into the latest on Silicon Labs products, including product releases and resources, documentation updates, PCN notifications, upcoming events, and more.
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • Community
  • Contact Us
  • Corporate Responsibility
  • Privacy and Terms
  • Press Room
  • Investor Relations
  • Site Feedback
  • Cookies
Copyright © Silicon Laboratories. All rights reserved.
粤ICP备15107361号
Also of Interest:
  • Bring Your IoT Designs to Life with Smart,...
  • A Guide to IoT Protocols at Works With...
  • IoT Hero Rainus Enhances the In-Store Shopping...