"Wearable" is a logical successor to "portable". I think a key paradigm decision to be made is whether computing should be local like a computer or smartphone, or relegated to the "cloud". It would define what chips would dominate this market.
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.
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.
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.
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.