Excellent article about the IoT as regards consumers. In the long run I think things will have to be “magical” as Mr. Rose says, even if companies like FitBit are succeeding now with simpler applications. That said, I suspect that for a lot of devices voice recognition will be sufficiently magic.
A couple of additional thoughts.
I think most IoT devices will be commercial. A pressure and temperature sensor on a pipeline or streetlights which report their own outages and tell the next streetlights to go extra bright until its bulb is replaced will not have to be magical, they’ll just have to cut costs, increase safety, or generate revenues for the pipeline company or the city. “Who owns the data” is a bigger question than even this article explores. In your example, that you are going to meet an ex-partner is data which I believe you should own. But what about the fact that someone is going to travel at a certain time from approximately your location to Melbourne Square, and the data show that the person will probably drive to and occupy a parking spot at a certain Metro station and take a train? Should that part of the information be available to a future upgraded Waze? And if so, how do you compensate so many people providing such tiny drops of information which are useless on their own but valuable when aggregated?
IoT may not be a great term when a lot of consumer devices are active but for now it’s useful to identify strategies — companies making enabling technologies, standards organizations implementing interoperability protocols and carving out bandwidth, even separate security standards to protect all the new data. A new term or terms can wait until a few billion more devices are out there.