The money won't be in the hardware, it'll be in the services provided.
I could see home monitoring subscriptions (like your alarm system today). Equipment service contracts. Cloud computing services to aggregate multiple sensor outputs and perform the necessary calculations that the low power sensors would not be capable of.
Definitely a solution looking for a problem, but if there is enough marketing hype, the problem will eventually be perceived.
I don't know that I could get behind such a pie-in-the-sky prediction as $14 trillion without some sound evidence to back it up.
No question about it, though. It will be a huge market with a huge impact on just about everything. There will be plenty of $2.00 or $0.50 mini systems in flower pots, cat collars, greeting cards and pretty much everything else.
But, as Mark stated, much of that probably won't be made by Cisco. A good deal of it will be assembled in some distant no-name factory where labor is cheap.
Even if 50 billion devices by 2020 is a reasonable prediction, to generate $14.4 trillion in sales means an ASP of $288 per device.
Move the decimal place one position to the left and then the 50B unit volume might actually happen.
yeah, I'll believe it when I see it: Cisco heavily involved in low-margin products. Can you think of any company less culturally suited to being the $2 sensor in my flowerpot, or the fitbit/tracker in my cat's collar.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.