Overview of smart home remotes

Logitech Logitech has had universal remotes before the smart home was as much a topic as it is now. The firm has several versions in its portfolio such as the Harmony Elite or the Harmony Companion. Harmony Pro (Source) Also, similarly to the flic (see below) Logitech has a square-cut remote-button in its portfolio. It is called the Pop which can, for example, toggle the lights in your smart home by pressing the button. The Logitech Pop (Source) NEEO Neeo, a Swiss company founded in 2014, offers a remote controlled “Remote”. The remote itself and the “NEEO Brain” (the hub that connects all your smart home devices so that you can control them via the remote) cost $399. It was was founded through a Kickstarter was supposed to ship in the first half of 2015. However, shipping has not yet started. The NEEO Remote (Source) Savant The Savant remote costs $499 and comes, same as the NEEO, with a hub. In contrast to NEEO it is already available, but only ships to the U.S. The Savant remote and host (Source) sevenhugs The sevenhugs remote is a touch-screen only remote. What makes it unique is its position-based functionality. Instead of choosing which device you want to control you point at it with the remote. It is

Xiaomi’s troubles and how to solve them

The Chinese internet company Xiaomi was founded in 2010. In 2014 and 2015 it was amongst the top five (sometimes even top three) smartphone makers world wide.   And with a valuation of over USD 46billion it is one of the world’s most valuable technology start-ups. Xiaomi might be known for its low-budget and stylish smartphones, targeting China’s middle class and its youth, but that is only part of what gave it that valuation. Investors believe that Xiaomi can build and ecosystem with its smartphones, smart home products and services consisting of games, apps and others. Its potential lies in bringing revenue through hardware-purchases as well as recurring purchases through services. Part of Xiaomi’s smart home portfolio (Source) Xiaomi’s portfolio represents that idea. Its offerings include a set-top box, rice cookers, a water and an air purifier, a drone, a fitness tracker,TVs, notebooks and a virtual reality headset as well as accessories such as power banks and audio devices. Xiaomi starts losing to competitors Ending 2015, however, it starting losing market share and ranks now below the top 5 smartphone producers. Instead of USD16 billion in sales revenues as predicted by the CEO Lei Jun, the company reached $12.5 billion, a miss of almost 13%.

Hearables are small computers and not headphones

Back in September, Apple introduced the Apple AirPods, a set of wireless earbuds, also known as hearables. And whereas hearables have existed before Apple’s AirPods their announcement has brought up interesting arguments about hearables in general. Concretely, users have repeatedly raised concerns about the following topics: They have a short battery life Earpiece unfitting for users’ ears Fear of losing them High price They have a short battery life Innovation often comes with some kind of behavioral change linked to costs. Besides learning costs (using a touchscreen after a feature phone), transaction costs (switching between cellular service providers), obsolescence costs (changing operating systems will make your old software useless) users encounter psychological costs. Psychological costs are associated with gains and losses. Consider, for example, the current state of electric cars. Through driving an electric car, you get a greener environment (your gain), but you lose the capability of long distance traveling (your loss). The same principle of gain and loss applies to hearables. Hearables have a short battery life; some only last for three hours. When using them, you gain, for instance, the comfort of cordless headphones, but, because you have to charge them, you lose the comfort of 24/7 availability. Consequently, a big issue for

Gaming "the" application for VR?

In terms of interest, Virtual Reality (VR) started to take off in 2015 and has been raising in popularity ever since. Lately, it experienced an all-time high in Google searches. trends.embed.renderExploreWidget(“TIMESERIES”, {“comparisonItem”:[{“keyword”:”virtual reality”,”geo”:””,”time”:”today 5-y”}],”category”:0,”property”:””}, {“exploreQuery”:”q=virtual%20reality”}); However, there was not only interesting development in search volume but also in sales volume, especially for Sony’s PlayStation VR. The market research company SuperData initially estimated that it will sell 2.6 million devices by the end of 2016. Recently, however, SuperData downsized that number to about a fourth, to about 750.000 (see chart). Nevertheless, the PlayStation VR is estimated to outsell the Oculus and HTC Vive headsets by more than 100% and 60% respectively. Whether the updated prediction is true is hard to tell. Assuming it is, makes me think if that can tell us anything about the critical success factors for VR. Considering the headsets’ different price levels one might assume that to be the reasons for Sony’s success. Sony’s VR is almost half the price of Vive and Oculus To use Sony’s VR you need a PlayStation 4, to use the Vive or Oculus you need a PC. Bundled together the PS4 and the headset (with controllers and a game) cost about $830. This is almost half

Gaming “the” application for VR?

In terms of interest, Virtual Reality (VR) started to take off in 2015 and has been raising in popularity ever since. Lately, it experienced an all-time high in Google searches. However, there was not only interesting development in search volume but also in sales volume, especially for Sony’s PlayStation VR. The market research company SuperData initially estimated that it will sell 2.6 million devices by the end of 2016. Recently, however, SuperData downsized that number to about a fourth, to about 750.000 (see chart). Nevertheless, the PlayStation VR is estimated to outsell the Oculus and HTC Vive headsets by more than 100% and 60% respectively. Whether the updated prediction is true is hard to tell. Assuming it is, makes me think if that can tell us anything about the critical success factors for VR. Considering the headsets’ different price levels one might assume that to be the reasons for Sony’s success. Sony’s VR is almost half the price of Vive and Oculus To use Sony’s VR you need a PlayStation 4, to use the Vive or Oculus you need a PC. Bundled together the PS4 and the headset (with controllers and a game) cost about $830. This is almost half of what the cheapest Vive

Retailers must go from selling to servicing

For a long time we have been shopping only offline, in „traditional“ retail stores. With the likes of Amazon.com and eBay people started the perks of online shopping. However, traditional retail is far from dead. Actually, traditional retail makes up about  92 percent of total retail sales. There are several reasons to that. Besides infrastructural reasons (e.g. bad logistic for home-delivery) the biggest reason is  the physical presence of objects. In fact, when asked why they do not shop online, around 30% of respondents in the UK said that they need to see the physical object first. Buying known products is different from buying innovations Studies about e-commerce attractiveness falsely assume that customers buy known objects and innovations in the same way. However, this is not true. Take you back to the 18th century an imagine there were only e-commerce shops and no traditional retailers. You hear about a new invention that cleans your clothes without your help called „washing machine“ . How willingly would you spend, let’s say $500, on an unknown product that „automagically“ cleans your cloths? If you are not an innovator or early adopter you probably would be very skeptical. What you would do is wait for a friend or colleague to

[Case Study] Should You Rehire a Defector?

The case study published in the Harvard Business Review December 2016 issue deals with Ram Kapur the founder and CEO of Green Impact Consulting, a sustainable design firm. Here is the background story of the case. Good beginnings Green Impact Consulting was founded four years ago. When it was two years old, Hari, friend and Ram’s former right hand, started working at Green Impact Consulting. With his more than eight years of experience, the company began to really take off since then. Initial troubles after Hari, a key employee, quit However Hari left Green Impact Consulting after working there for two years. After initial troubles due to Hari’s departure, the business has picked up again and is in great condition. Hari lied about his motives for leaving and wants to rejoin Now, one year after his departure, Hari wants to rejoin the company. The issue arises around Hari’s motives for leaving and Ram’s feelings about that. Hari went to work for a larger competitor (Sustainable Build Group) after he quit his job at Green Impact Consulting, initially for personal reasons. After a conversation with Ram, it turns out that Hari left because Sustainable Build Group offered him an increased salary

The reasons why Echo and Google are winning over HUE and Nest

I have recently looked through more than 30 smart home providers and realized that there are four groups: Mass product providers: Companies like Samsung SmartThings that ofer all kinds of smart devices. Niche product providers: Companies focusing on one or two products. Like Philiphs with its HUE light bulbs or Rachio with a wifi-controlled sprinkler. Central units: Products like Homee with serve as a bridge between devices from different manufacturers and with different technologies. SaaS platforms: Software companies like qivicon offering cloud solutions for the management, integration and combination of smart devices. Interface provider: There are two broad distinctions in this sectors: Software solutions like the Magenta SmartHome app and hardware providers like the Senic smart controller or Flic, a smart wireless button. The idea of smart homes has been around for over 80 years (here you can find a video of a robot made in 1932) and I honestly think the biggest impact originates from Google’s and Amazon’s introduction of their home assistants (Amazon Echo and Google Home). Their established distribution channels are only of their impact. I believe there are three more reasons: Immediate gratification: Compared to a window sensor or smart doorbell getting a question answered by Echo or a summary of my day is immediately useful. A smart doorbell which helps me talk to postman is certainly

AI for hearables more important than sound quality

It seems to me that lately, everybody is taking about AI. Wwhen I look at what hearables can  do (or what currently available models offer) and what announced hearables promise to deliver, I cannot help but do the same in the context of hearables. There are several differentiation criteria for headphones such as sound quality, comfort or durability. Hearables, of course, are a form of headphones, namely wireless headphones. Therefore, it would make sense to have the same differentiation criteria for hearables. However, hearables are only somewhat similar to hearables. Somewhat because they are independent of end devices, versatile (they have biometric measuring for sports activities but also integrated microphones for making phone calls)and part of ubiquitous computing (you have a computer in your ear). Hence, using the same criteria for headphones as well as hearables, will not work. However, independence or biometric tracking information alone will not help hearables cross the chasm to become mainstream and eventually a commodity. What will is AI. AI answers the “So what?”-question AI will play a huge differentiating role amongst hearables. Possibly in wearables in general. It’is nice that the Dash hearables tell me my hear rate or average speed while running, but that does not answer the „So what?“ question: Headphone:

What firms should do in the case of a product recall

When a company recalls a product, it makes sense to assume that competitors can gain market share. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Business Review’s November 2106 issue suggests otherwise. Product recalls harm you and your local competitors The study refers to what is called perverse spillover: Here, one brand’s recall creates consumer concerns about the recalling brand as well about competitors of the same origin, but boosts the business of foreign competitors. According to the study, this is especially significant for highly dominant brands or models. For instance, if Toyota’s top-selling Corolla were to be recalled it would have a much stronger spillover on Japanese competitors than the recall of a less popular model of less popular brand like the Nissan Sentra. How do deal with product recalls The study also suggested tactics for companies faced with a recall: Recalling firms should avoid apologies: This would only increase awareness of the incident. Local competitors should avoid action: They should not try to take advantage of the situation as it would lead to increased visibility and reinforce the spillover effect. Foreign competitors should embrace action: They, however, should try to take advantage of the situation: For them it makes