Susan asked: Remember the term Internet appliance design from 10 years ago or more?
When it comes to computers, I understand the term appliance to mean "a device easily used by non-technical consumers". Most tech gadgets fail this test. While they can be used to a certain extent by non-experts, if anything goes wrong the user is unlikely to be able to deal with it. How many of us have to visit their parents after a power outage to reset the clocks? What happens when over-the-air digital TV stations change frequencies and are no longer accessible?
As a historic note, when the Apple II was first advertised in Byte magazine and other places, the advert showed a non-geeky couple using their Apple II in the kitchen. Get it? It's an Appliance. Brilliant marketing, forshadowing huge success in selling to non-technical consumers.
I don't think this is too far off! I can see this ability being common in the next few years. I think there's a big enough market for it that we're just waiting for ways to sense these things accurately that don't involve breaking the skin!
Well, in different circles, "appliance" means different things. I tend to use it as a term to mean that something can stand on its own, it doesn't need another device to function. Others draw the distinction in the hardware somehow.
Ok, I get the feeling that these wearables will not be driven by keyboard input so much as sensory input. So it would not be a computing-intensive device at all, with an operating system, etc. (So no blue screen of death!) Probably calculator-type chip with sensors. It's a new direction for sure, for the foundries and their customers.
We can just combine the two terms "wearable" & "Appliance" to coin a new term Wearable Appliances to suit these new generation of devices .
But I would prefer more accessorires than the Appliances on my body. Because with accessories I can pick and choose and make own system on my body and I can use my smart phone or even some other wi-fi device to collect the data from these accessories and procees it.
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.